Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


3 1223 03273 6697 


San Francisco Public Library 

' -Iter 


- y 

100 Urktn Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco. CA 94102 


Not to be taken from the Library 

£>ecuMPNtfi nerr. 

JUL 1 7 1997 





L ^^\ ! \i^ 



ROOM 113 


TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997 
9:15 A.M. 





ROOM 113 


TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1997 
9:15 A.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 6697 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 



Board of Regents 
University of California 




Third College 

University of California at San Diego 

Board of Regents 
University of California 




Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 


The Regents of the University of California 1 

Introduction and Support by; 



Background and Experience 6 

Witness in Support; 


Third College 

University of California at San Diego 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re; 

Alumni Regent 11 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re; 

Position on Abandonment of 

Affirmative Action at University 12 

Position on Race-based Outreach 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Suggestions on Outreach 14 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re; 

Charter School on Campus 16 

Possibility of University Adopting 

a Community High School 17 

Motivation for Students to Perceive 

Themselves as UC Undergraduates 17 

Definition of Under-privileged Students 18 

Position on SCA 8 (HUGHES) , entitling 

Top 12.5 Percent of a High School's Graduates 

to Attend UC 2 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Community Colleges that Encourage 

Students to Continue at UC 21 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Drop in Enrollment in UC Medical 

and Law Schools 22 

Discussion about Broadening Diversity of 

Student Population in UC System 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Evolution of High School Connectedness 24 

Reason Faculty Voted against Charter 

School on UCSD Campus 24 

Request for Legislature • s Help 25 

Further Suggestions to Broaden 

Student Diversity at UC 26 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Explanation for Vote to Raise 

Student Fees 28 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Voted No on Increasing Fees for 

Out of State Students 29 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Student Fees 3 

Discussion of Votes on Student Fee Increases 30 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Reasons for Voting to Increase 

Fees for Professional Schools 31 

Vote Against Out of State Student 

Fee Increases 31 

General Philosophy regarding 

Undergraduate Student Fees 32 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Donor-based Admissions 32 

4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 108 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position regarding Domestic Partner 

Benefits 34 

Toughest, Most Difficult Vote while 

on Board 34 

Most Influential Regent 35 

Positive and Negative Outcomes 

Associated with Change in Affirmative 

Action Policy 37 

Motion to Confirm 68 

Committee Action 69 


The Regents of the University of California 40 

Background and Experience 40 

Introduction and Support bv: 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Political Activities of Nominee 44 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Reason for Supporting Nominee 44 

Discussion of Vote on Increasing Student Fees 45 


Resumption of Background and Experience 47 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Recognizing Domestic 

Partnerships 50 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Choice of Princeton 51 

Position on Admitting Females to 

All-Male Princeton 51 

How Serving as Princeton Trustee Prepares 

One to Serve as UC Regent 53 

Position on Charter School on Campus 55 


Appropriateness of Economic Mix 

for Diversity 56 

Low Enrollments in Professional 

Schools 56 

Position on SCA 8 to Counteract the 

Effect of Banning Affirmative Action 57 

Specific Plans to Encourage Diversity 58 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Work History from 1968-74 59 

Statements by SENATOR HUGHES on Networking 60 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Trilateral Commission 61 

Tenure as Teacher of English 62 

Favorite Book 62 

Mission of University of California 63 

Populist Responsibility to UC vs. 

Aristocratic Background 64 

Possibility of Private Legal Matters 65 

Selection of New Chancellor 66 

Motion to Confirm 67 

Committee Action 68 

Termination of Proceedings 69 

Certificate of Reporter 70 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good morning. Well, it looks 
like it may be a little quieter hearing this morning. One of 
the benefits of spilling over. 

I think, Senators Alpert and Peace, perhaps, 
since you're both here. Senators, I believe you wanted to 
introduce Peter, didn't you, so both of you do that. 

Mr. Parsky, if you're not on a plane immediately, 
I assume you're okay. 

SENATOR ALPERT: Thank you. This is my first 
time to do this, to actually come before the Senate on a 
confirmation, and I just want to thank you for letting me 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We always turn the first one 
down. It's one of our initiations. 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR ALPERT: I wanted to speak about Peter, 
who's someone that I have come to know as a friend. 

The first time I met Peter was on Alumni Day when 
the UC alumni come up here each year, and he would come with a 
group from San Diego to talk about the University. 

I think the next time I saw him was at a luncheon 
where he was touting the synergy between UCSD and the business 
community, and how well they tied in together. And then I've 
continued to see him over the years. Then, eventually as an 
alumni regent, and then with this last step, was appointment to 
the Regents. 

And I thought, you know, he was a wonderful 
choice to be appointed to the Regents, because it wasn't just 
something that was done for political reasons, or just to reward 
someone, but rather it was to put someone on the Board of 
Regents who had shown an incredible love and commitment to the 
University system. 

This man has worked to promote the whole UC 
system, and certainly especially the UCSD part of the system, 
for years. This is not something new. This is long-time 
commitment to the University. 

In listening last night to some of the witnesses 
who testified on his behalf before you closed down, I think over 
and over again you heard the word enthusiasm. I think that very 
aptly describes Peter. Whatever he gets involved in, he goes 
full force. 

He, I know, will be the kind of person, and has 
been even in this almost a year that he's been serving on it, 
that will use all of his time and energy to make the University 
a better place. 

I think a couple of special talents that he may 
bring would be his success in the high technology field, and the 
success that he has had. And part of his success has been 
because of his work in the University, and then moving out into 
the business field. 

I think as we look to the future of California, 
this is the kind of industry and the kind of connection that UC 
and the business community actually does very, very well. He'll 
bring that expertise and that ability as a member of the 


We're very proud in San Diego of all of the kinds 
of work that he does, not only with the Regents, but an awful 
lot of community service. And again, I think you heard 
testified to yesterday his commitment to charter schools and his 
work in trying to bring a more diverse population to the UC 

With that, I turn it over to Senator Peace. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER : Good morning. 

SENATOR PEACE: Good morning. How are you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been here before. 

SENATOR PEACE: Yes, I have, so I've all ready 
had mine. You can interpret that however you want. 

I have not known Mr. Preuss for a long time. In 
fact, I met him after his service as a UC Regent, so much of my 
knowledge of his past service is, like most San Diegans, either 
through intermittant contact or through reading through the 
newspapers and within our community, and not in the political 

Within our community, he's an individual who's 
extraordinarily well known as one of the true giant 
humanitarians, and a person who, on issues and community 
circumstances, and particularly those where he has had either 
some personal business experience or personal experience that 
he's been willing to share and help others with his knowledge, 
his background, his experience. 

Having had the opportunity now to speak with him, 
keeping in mind I always first come to the UC as a UCSD 

graduate, and is always referred to as the black sheep of the 
UCSD, frankly I'm always looking for somebody at UCSD that likes 
me. And I'm still looking. 

And you all have heard me on occasion say some 
pretty harsh and critical things about my campus, of which I am 
an alumnus. 

There are two things that I found extraordinary 
about the consciousness, not only now as a former student at 
UCSD, but at a parent who is beginning, who is dealing -- I have 
a junior in high school who's now looking at colleges. And two 
things struck me in my conversations which I had with Peter. 
With all due respect to the other Regents, I have never in any 
conversation with a fellow Regent seen an awareness as of these 
issues as I did in the conversation with Peter. To me, they 
were very telling. 

The first was his comment that the University of 
California's idea of improving their affirmative action program 
is producing a better brochure. 

As a person who has grown up and lived in San 
Diego, and lived in the south of San Diego, and understands why 
a lot of kids in my district don't know where UCSD is, which so 
many of us referred to as the University of California at La 
Jolla -- which, if you'll remember historically, that's what 
they wanted to call it. 

The second comment was really very simple. I 
started to make reference to the application process at UC, and 
how difficult. I didn't even get half a sentence out, and Peter 
told me more about how messed up the application to UC is, and 

how it compared, in his words again, "You know that it is easier 
to apply and fill out the application forms to go to Harvard 
than it is to go to UC . " 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Today we say Princeton. 
Mr. Parsky is here. 

SENATOR PEACE: He is a very practical, focused 
man with a wide breadth of experience, and unique experience, as 
Senator Alpert has indicated, that he brings to the Board in 
terms of his own both personal and business experience, which 
stands by itself as qualification. 

But what has made me a very enthusiastic 
supporter, to be honest with you, was an opportunity to speak 
more as a parent and a former student with him, and see how much 
time he's obviously spent on the sorts of things that most 
people in these appointed positions, whether they be UC Regents 
or something else, don't pay a lot of attention to. They don't 
get down to the nitty-gritty of what do the application forms 
look like, and how can we make it more user friendly. 

So, he has a consciousness level and a practical 
kind of knowledge and commitment to making the campus 
student-friendly, which has always been my number one complaint 
with my beloved institution, which I love dearly and appreciate 
the opportunity to have gone to. 

But I am personally committed to refocusing this 
institution, not away from its research responsibilities, 
but more firmly toward its student and teaching 
responsibilities . 

And I sense in Peter Preuss a level of commitment 

1 and understanding the importance of that, which I quite frankly 

2 have not seen replicated in any other Regent. I think that he 

3 has the opportunity and the enthusiasm to be leader on that 

4 issue/ which to me is the most important issue facing the 

5 University. 

6 Thank you. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any questions for our 

8 colleagues? Okay, thank you. 

9 Dede, maybe you're the one I ought to ask, 

10 Senator Alpert, because you've known the family for a long 

11 time. 

12 I hope that Peter's wife has considerable 

13 influence, because I look at the make-up of the Board: 18 

14 guys, 6 women. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: That's about right. 

16 [Laughter . ] 

17 SENATOR PEACE: Only 6 off. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I want you to encourage her as 

19 well to keep influencing. 

2 SENATOR ALPERT: And again, from what I know, and 

21 I don't know Mrs. Preuss as well, but I see her as a full 

22 partner and someone who is very committed to education. And I 

23 think certainly does her share of nudging as well for Peter. 

24 Thank you. 

2 5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Preuss, come on up. 

26 Do you want to start with any comment? 

27 MR. PREUSS: Yes, I would like to, if I could. 

28 I would like to make just a short statement. In a way, it 


addresses some of the issues which all ready have been 
addressed, so I apologize if I'm repetitive. 

I believe that the University of California is an 
incredible place for education, for research, and for the 
service to all people of California. I have been fortunate to 
have had the University of California as a close part of my 
life. Since coming here as a foreign exchange student in 1965, 
my career grew from the lessons and opportunities which were 
available to me at that time in the University of California. 

My family is healthy and alive today only 
because of the advanced research of the University of 
California . 

So, I, in short, I'm willing to say that anything 
good which happened in my life, in my adult life so far, had 
something to do with the University of California. And that 
really is the reason why I'm here today. 

In 1993, the alumni of the University of 
California, San Diego, elected me to sit on the Board of Regents 
for two years, and for the past year, I've served as an 
appointed Regent. 

As a Regent, I have worked to maintain close 
contact with all of the areas of the University. I've 
maintained close contact with the staff of the University, very 
close contact with the undergraduate students and the graduate 
students. I've met many times with the faculty, and I've met a 
number of times now with the Academic Senate with whom we share 
governance . 

I have had an active, close relationship with the 


1 President and with virtually all of the Chancellors. Certainly, 

2 staying in close touch with you is of vital importance for the 

3 University of California; which is why I have visited you many 

4 times in the last few years on occasions to talk with you about 

5 higher education issues, actually even before I became a 

6 Regent. 

7 I firmly believe that the Regents must be willing 

8 and eager to listen and to be responsive to all Californians, 

9 and that's very important inside and outside the University. 

10 As you can see from the support I've received in 

11 the last few weeks, I enjoy good relationships with many of the 

12 people involved in the life of our University. I believe in 

13 seeking information and seeking advice. 

14 I think you will also find that my record 

15 demonstrates that I'm an activist. I'm an activist in the 

16 outreach efforts to enable children with potential, who don't 

17 come from privileged and upper-class neighborhoods, to become a 

18 part of the University. 

19 An activist to ensure that our teaching hospitals 

20 are the best, that they maintain the strengths to be health care 

21 providers for everybody, for all Californians in need, and to 

22 remain the first and best educators of the doctors of 

23 tomorrow. 

24 And an activist for the teaching and research 

25 that will continue to create new industries in our state, to 

26 help define our state's future economy, and therefore, to create 

27 more jobs for all Californians on all levels of the economic 

28 scale. 

My activism as a Regent will always be aimed to 
ensure that UC serves, indeed, all Californians, and that UC 
makes a difference and builds a better future for the people in 
our state. 

Thank you very much. I am looking forward to the 
questions you will have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I'll ask if there is 
anyone present who'd wish to make a comment? Yes, sir, please. 

MR. LYTLE : Good morning. Senators. My name is 
Cecil Lytle. 

I joined the faculty at UC San Diego in 1974. 
Following two terms as Department Chair, I was appointed Provost 
of Third College in 1988. 

As many of you probably know, the Regents and 
students and faculty of the campus put forward a name change to 
rename Third College in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall in 

I'm here to speak on behalf of the confirmation 
of Peter Preuss. I first met Peter in 1985 at a ceremony at UC 
San Diego, where he was honored as the outstanding alumni. I 
was also selected as the outstanding faculty member, I should 
mention, at that same ceremony. 

But that actually began our 12-year friendship 
and 12-year working relationship. This is prior to Peter's 
appointment as a UC Regent. 

It was very clear that the leadership of Peter 
Preuss is not just because of his appointment. It is in his 
nature. The generosity that Peter has shown to this community. 


1 to this campus, is again in his nature, and I suspect that that 

2 nature, I trust that that nature will continue to his permanent 

3 appointment as a Regent, or 12-year appointment as a Regent. 

4 You heard yesterday from Coleen Sabatini, one of 

5 our student presidents, actually from '95-96, about Peter's 

6 association with students. He clearly seeks out the advice of 

7 faculty, students; is a broker between all of the agents of this 

8 particular campus. 

9 But I've gotten really to know Peter quite 

10 closely in the last three years that we have been part of this 

11 initiative to build a public high school on the campus of UC San 

12 Diego. Peter has been involved from the very beginning, not 

13 just in regental matters, but in terms of serving as a broker 

14 with faculty, students, and indeed the community of San Diego to 

15 initiate this unique project. 

16 It's a project that separates the talk from the 

17 walk. Peter Preuss has always believed in the capacities of our 

18 citizens to achieve two competing, what we think are competing 

19 virtues, and that is academic excellence and cultural 

20 diversity. 

21 This project that Peter has joined me in for the 

22 last three years is designed to bring to a university campus 

23 motivated, promising youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

24 It is the intent and the conceptual framework of this project 

25 that Peter has helped to shape that we will make academic 

26 excellence available to all of our citizens. 

27 Peter Preuss has been involved not just in the 

28 fundraising, but he has been involved in the building of the 


community support for this. And I mean by community support, 
galvanizing contributions from the corporate heads of 
international corporations, as well as the galvanizing support 
by parent groups locally in San Diego. 

His infectious enthusiasm, I think, has been the 
key element here, and again, it's an infectious enthusiasm I 
think you have sensed this morning, and I think it's an 
infectious enthusiasm that he will continue to bring to the 
Board of Regents. 

I would certainly ask that you confirm Peter 
Preuss. He is someone who has contributed to the San Diego 
campus in immeasurable ways, and I believe will contribute to 
the University of California in the future. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Are there questions? Thank you, sir. Good luck 
with the outreach project. 

MR. LYTLE: It will happen. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from 

Peter, when did you first become an alumni 
Regent? What was your -- 

MR. PREUSS: It was 1995. No, that's wrong. I 
was alumni Regent, was 1993, I think. So, I sat until 1995, 
June of 1995. 

A vote we all talk about happened in July of 
1995, a month after I had left the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The vote of July 20th, 1995. 


1 MR. PREUSS: The vote, yes. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I was looking at the fee votes 

3 over a number of years. As alumni, did you start in the summer? 

4 MR. PREUSS: I started in the summer, yes, July 

5 was my first meeting, I believe. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you missed the March fee 

7 increase vote. You're a master of timing. July, okay. 

8 MR. PREUSS: I hate to say, I wasn't the master. 

9 It was the people who appointed me. I can't take credit. 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: I've heard so very much about 

11 you, and I'm very glad to finally meet you. 

12 What's your opinion of what the Regents did in 

13 abandoning the affirmative action program? As we see ourselves 

14 fast becoming an ethnic minority state, what do you feel the 

15 charge is as a Regent now to try to accommodate the students 

16 that are in our state? 

17 MR. PREUSS: I believe we now have a situation in 

18 the University which we now, for the time being, have to live 

19 with, and we have to now see and take it, and make the very best 

20 out it. 

21 I described myself as an activist. I am looking 

22 for things where I actually can help. 

23 The vote in 1995 had two parts. The first one we 

24 all know. The second one has gotten very little publicity, that 

25 we should substantially increase the outreach of the University 

26 of California. 

27 I hate to report to you that at this point we 

28 have got two draft reports, and will get a final report about 



the outreach task force, which I have read, and which says, 
let's do a little more of what we have done so far. 

I believe that is not sufficient in going out. I 
believe we have to have new ideas. I have a lot of new ideas, 
some of them I am most willing and eager to share with you, to 
go out and to really make the University of California a viable 
place for the under-privileged children of our state. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, Regent Ward Connerly has 
recently adopted the attitude that we should have more 
raise-based outreach. Yet and still, he voted against 
affirmative action. This seems sort of contradictory. 

How do you feel about his dual actions, and how 
do you feel about his suggestion that we go out and get 
raise-based outreach? 

MR. PREUSS: It is very hard to second guess 
Regent Ward Connerly. I really think would be very unwise for 
me to even start. 

I have my own ideas about how to do it. I 
believe that we really have to go out and intensify our efforts, 
and we cannot afford, as a University, to stand and wait for 
things to happen, and stand and wait for all kinds of parties to 
decide whether our actions or right or wrong. We have to go out 
and do. So, that's where I put all of my energy, is to really 

actively do. 

The motto of our fundraiser we had in our town, 
in our home, for the charter school was making outreach a 
day-to-day event. That was a little headline we had. It was 
on top of a little school house. 

14 • 

1 But not just talking/ let's do. Anyway, let's 

2 do. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mine is, when you wake up, get 

4 up. When you get up, do something. They tease me in my family 

5 about that. 

6 On the same point, what are the specific things 

7 that you would strongly recommend or are thinking about as far 

8 as outreach? 

9 MR. PREUSS: The high school located on the 

10 campus, I will go into a little bit of detail there, but I will 

11 then go beyond that. 

12 The high school being on the campus, and I don't 

13 like the word, charter school, because charter school is ladened 

14 with predefined meaning. It is a high school for 

15 under-privileged kids located on the campus. It's solving two 

16 problems. 

17 The first problem is that those kids we will be 

18 choosing, which are kind of the second best kids -- not the 

19 best, because the best are snapped away by the private schools 

20 and all kinds of places. It's the kids who have a high degree 

21 of potential, but in today's system are falling through the 

22 cracks. Those kids frequently come from families where going to 

23 college is not that important a thing, where they don't get 

24 quite the support from their families like other kids do. 

25 If they live four years on the campus, they will 

26 know, will be interested, in the campus life. There's another 

27 aspect of it -- 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Live on the campus? 



MR. PREUSS: No, I mean — 

CHAIRMTVN LOCKYER: Attend school? 

MR. PREUSS: Attend school on the campus. 

Another aspect of it is, the faculty of our 
campuses have been very, very outspoken with regard to the 
support of the abstract issues. The faculty of our campus 
nevertheless does what the Preusses and the Clintons do, they 
send their kids to the best schools they feel their kids can 
have, and the problem of today's education is on the other side, 
not even off Highway 5. It's on the other side of Highway 8, 
which is far, far away. Some how or other, we have to get this 
problem to be visible to the faculty so when they are in the 
shower in the morning, and think about things, a small 
percentage of the faculty will think about innovative ways of 
how we can do education better. 

That then leads to the last part of this whole 
project, the part it would be the equivalent of something the 
University has been very good at, the agricultural field 
station, the research, the bio-technology research lab, where 
all institutions which, in an abstract sense, in a laboratory 
sense, tried things, which then was exported to whole state to 
benefit the whole state. We are one of the leading -- the 
leading agricultural area in the world because what we tried in 
the agricultural fields, this is an urban field station to learn 
new ways to do something which we can get better, which we can 
learn in, with very little research being done compared to most 
any other industry in this state. 

Now, the other aspect of it, I don't know. 


1 SENATOR HUGHES: I want to ask you about, is the 

2 high school on the campus now, or is it just in the planning 

3 stage? 

4 MR. PREUSS: The high school was just voted 

5 down by the faculty. 

6 SENATOR HUGHES: Oh, it was? 

7 MR. PREUSS: It was voted down by the faculty. 

8 And the problem I have personally, I said, I cannot detect a 

9 good reason, and that makes me very sad. 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: Are you going to give up or try 

11 again? 

12 MR. PREUSS: Oh, no, no. As the administration 

13 is saying, we have to be very even-handed, and we have to listen 

14 to the faculty, which we have to. 

15 And I mentioned in my talks that I very much 

16 respect the dual governance, but at the same time, the 

17 community, the community across all boundaries of political 

18 attitude, is so firmly for it. 

19 I think we have two very well-to-do, as it turns 

20 out, Democrats in our city who are willing to build the school 

21 house, who are willing to put big, big money up. 

22 This community, it has been mentioned in our 

23 newspaper every day, I think you can say, for the last few 

24 weeks. 

2 5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's the f under s? 

26 MR. PREUSS: I am not free to tell you that. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I thought it was public. 

28 MR. PREUSS: No, it's not public. We have very. 


very strong, and I don't want to hurt the possibilities of it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Even though you wouldn't have 
now, because the faculty didn't vote to have the high school on 
the campus, what about the possibility of them adopting a high 
school that's somewhere in the community and providing the kinds 
of services that you had envisioned a high school on the campus 

MR. PREUSS: Senator, I would love to have a long 
conversation with you about that. And let me be very short 
about that. 

This is something we definitely have to do as 
well in a much, much broader scale than we ever have done 
before. But the kernel of this idea, I believe, and I would 
love to have the chance to talk, to really -- to have, if I 
wish, a quick discussion with pros and cons about that, to go 
through the rationale why it being on campus is so important in 
this particular case. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Let's pretend that the faculty 
did vote, and you were going to have the high school on the 
campus. It would be motivational to the students to be on a 
campus which, hopefully, someday, they could attend as 
undergraduate students. 

What were your plans, if any, on providing an 
opportunity for these students to perceive of themselves as 
being undergraduate students, not necessarily on UC San Diego's 
campus, but on any UC campus? Was that in your thinking at all? 

MR. PREUSS: Look, to double our attendance of 
under-privileged kids from different ethnic background is a very 

1 easy to attain goal, something like that, because the numbers 

2 are so dismally small. So, that is obviously the goal. 

3 If you are on a university campus, and you are 

4 breathing on a daily basis the -- you know, the undergraduate 

5 students of the University in this plan, where it was planned to 

6 employ them as tutors. And so, those are the kids who talk 

7 about, you know. So-and-so went over to Davis, and So-and-so 

8 went over to UCLA. The whole notion of all these issues would 

9 be a day-to-day event for those kids. Whereas, in the poorer 

10 high schools in our community, these things are not discussed 

11 that much. 

12 SENATOR HUGHES: How do you define 

13 under-privileged students? 

14 MR. PREUSS: Under-privileged students who are 

15 out from economic backgrounds which are not the strongest. 

16 Students who live in neighborhoods in our community which are 

17 known to not have the quality of public high schools which are 

18 the areas, other parts of the area. 

19 And a privilege, I believe, young children have 

20 which is very important with regard to their potential of 

21 college education is their environment at home with regard to 

22 previous college education of their parents, their relatives, 

23 their friends. And those are the factors which I think we feel 

24 are the factors most detrimental with regard to getting those 

25 kids to come to our schools. 

26 SENATOR HUGHES: Most economically deprived 

27 students do not perceive of themselves actually going to 

28 college -- 


MR. PREUSS: Correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: -- because their families don't 
have the means, the economic means, to make it possible. 

But some economically deprived students, like I 
was, I had a college, a university up the hill from me, a 
specialized high school up the hill from me, and a fantastically 
wealthy private college up the hill from me. 

I knew I was going to go to one, one day, but I 
didn't even think of trying to get in the economically 
privileged, the wealthy college campus. 

How do we direct our students to have those high 
goals and ambitions, because this being America, I think 
anything is possible. I didn't as a child, but now I know it 
is . 

MR. PREUSS: And, you know, I agree with you. I 
came here with one suitcase and with a fellowship which went 
away a year later from the German government, who wrote me that 
if I don't come back, they didn't want to hear anything from me 
anymore. They didn't hear anything from me anymore. 

So, in a not very comparable sense, I also know 
everything in this state is possible, and we have to have people 
realize that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have introduced a measure. 
Senate Constitutional Amendment 7, to amend our Constitution to 
see that at least 12.5 percent of students from each high school 
would be entitled, entitled, to admission to a UC campus, 
because we find that the students who are college inclined feel 
that they can only go to a community college and no where else. 


or they feel that they shouldn't apply to UC because that's the 
top of the mountain, and they can't climb that high, but maybe 
they should go to CSU. 

So, if we chose the cream-of-the-crop off the top 
of high schools like 12.5 percent and said, you are admissible 
providing that you have the academic standards within your own 
high school, and I would think that any A student in any high 
school, or B-plus student in any high school, should be the 
same, no matter where the high school is located. Even if the 
high school is located on your UC campus, they're not going to 
be any better, necessarily, than the high school in Watts, or 
the high school in south Sacramento, or something like that. 

How do you feel about that? Could you as a 
Regent conceive of us creaming off the top of each high school, 
and encouraging and making it possible within the realm of the 
imagination of any student and their parents, that they are 
university material? 

MR. PREUSS: Senator, that sounds like a very 
interesting idea, and I would love to hear more about it, and 
would love to study it, and certainly would be open to look at 
it in great detail. 

We have to do some change. We have some how or 
other stem the tide. 

The University of California is arguably the very 
best post secondary education a kid can get in the world. And 
in our high school and elementary school area, we are not 
ranking that well among the 50 states in the United States. To 
some how or other find a way how we can transition that bridge. 


we have to try anything we can. 

And I would love to have an opportunity to talk 
to you in detail about that and learn about it, and its 
alternatives, and perhaps decide what might be the best 
alternative . 

We, as Regents, cannot decide, but we certainly 
can promote. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Influence the decisions. 

MR. PREUSS: T^solutely, and that's what — I 
will influence a decision in that direction, as I have in the 
past . 

The one which I really would like to get involved 
in, I mentioned earlier, is something you had touched, and that 
is, as a pass to the University of California through the 
community colleges. 

We are right now doing extremely well in some 
community colleges and lousy in others. We are now seeing that 
we don't have enough people entering our professional schools 
who come from under-privileged areas of our society. 

I think one of the paths which we can solve right 
away, which does not take two generations to come to take place, 
is to somehow or other publish that path in a major fashion, and 
understand why certain community colleges do not have a good 
crop of people who are being promoted up into the University 
system, and what we can do other than brochures to make them 
take that step. 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Are there ones that come to 
mind that are doing particularly good or bad job? 


1 MR. PREUSS: Senator, I apologize. Those data, 

2 all this is just in the beginning in my mind. I have to do a 

3 lot of studying. This happened all within the last couple of 

4 months. And the last couple of months, the preparation for this 

5 meeting has taken a lot of time. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sorry about that. 

7 SENATOR HUGHES: I am concerned that the number 

8 of applicants to your medical schools who are ethnic minorities 

9 have dropped. And also the number of applicants to Boalt, and 

10 your fine law schools. 

11 And do we do to encourage these students to 

12 apply? 

13 MR. PREUSS: We should — first of all, what I 

14 believe is one of the key things to do is, we should increase 

15 the pool. We should increase the pool of which they are being 

16 chosen. 


18 MR. PREUSS: If we would take them as a model of 

19 the best community colleges and see what they are doing with 

20 regard to forwarding kids to the University of California 

21 system, and extrapolate that one to all community colleges, we 

22 wouldn't have that problem any more. That's a very good first 

23 step, and that's one which doesn't have to wait. We can do that 

24 fast. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I have a suspicion it's 

26 demographic and economic. You're going to find different 

27 families clustered in different colleges. 

28 MR. PREUSS: That's what we have to find 



solutions for. 


I tease my colleague with her twelve-and-a-half 
bill, because I, of course, regard it as the False Address Act 
of 1997. It gets a whole lot of people who want to get into UC 
who live in Beverly Hills to somehow register their kids in 
South Central . 

SENATOR HUGHES: That would be the greatest thing 
that ever happened. I like it. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRK?\N LOCKYER: They may not spend any money 
in South Central, but they rent an apartment. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Just think of the wonderful 
human interaction, what the ghetto and the barrio students could 
teach the upper-middle income students about survival. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Here we go, 90210. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I mean, our students have real 
survival skills. That's a great idea that you have, Senator 
Lockyer . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But her seriousness and the 
Senator's commitment to figuring out how we broaden the number, 
and kinds, and types, and specially low-income students going to 
university is very genuine and a real problem. 

It's obvious that you're sincere about wanting to 
figure that out. If it were easy, someone would all ready very 
done it, probably. 

MR. PREUSS: That doesn't mean that we shouldn't 

24 • 


2 We talked about the high school connectedness/ 

3 and especially UCSD. 

4 How's that going to evolve? How will that maybe 

5 take place? 

6 MR. PREUSS: I think the shared responsibility 

1 for all those things is serious beyond only the Regents and the 

8 faculty. I think an outcry of the community as loud as it is 

9 happening right now in San Diego should be noticed. And it's 

10 not subsiding. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was it basically just ivory 

12 tower sentiment that was the reason for the no, or what 

13 arguments did you hear? 

14 MR. PREUSS: Senator, it's a diplomatic thing for 

15 me to not comment on this one. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've been around Mr. Parsky 

17 too much. You're learning his little tricks. When you were 

18 interviewed a year ago, you were much blunter. 

19 MR. PREUSS: I learned a lot. 

20 [Laughter.] 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Something happened. 

22 I was just asking for what arguments you heard 

23 being made, not that you'd agree with. 

24 MR. PREUSS: The key argument which was 

25 originally being made is, you know, these are funds which we 

26 needs so desperately for other things. 

27 Which led my wife and me — and keep in mind, you 

28 mentioned earlier that we need more influence of the female side 


on the Regents -- my wife is my full-time partner in this one. 
My wife has been for 19 years teaching school in public schools, 
both in Pasadena and then later on right on the border in San 
Diego. She knows that problem so much better than I do, so that 
much of the ideas and much of the incentive for that is coming 
actually from my wife, who's sitting in the audience. 

We decided, when that argument came about, said 
that we have to -- and we said, of course, the community would 
be most willing to jump in. We decided, okay, then, let's jump 
in. And we ourselves stepped forward, and we then went to our 

And the reaction we got among our friends across 
the board of political spectrum -- we have -- my wife and I do a 
lot of fundraising. We've never seen a project which has gotten 
this response. We didn't get noes. I mean, there's somebody 
who came forward, "We match your gift, but we only match your 
gift because we don't want to put you into a shadow." I said, 
"Okay, put us into the shadow, fine. We don't mind." 

I am convinced that this would be the most 
successful fundraising drive for a special project in San Diego, 
bar none . 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: You think it'll work out in 
terms of its eventual acceptance? 

MR. PREUSS: We need your help as well. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would we assist? 

MR. PREUSS: We are now talking real politics, so 


1 you could assist by providing specialty monies for it, monies 

2 which are not -- which are ear-marked for it. 

3 You could assist for speaking out for it, for 

4 making it attractive for all parts of the University to take it 

5 more seriously. 

6 We have to get serious about this. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Peace, you know, is 

8 serving now on the Budget Conference Committee, which is meeting 

9 right now. I know he has considerable enthusiasm for this. 

10 You might want to make sure to talk with him soon about trying 

11 to add it into the budget. 

12 MR. PREUSS: I have a note here saying, "Preuss, 

13 Lytle, re: charter school. Please meet with me at 3:30 

14 yesterday afternoon." 

15 We missed that one. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We were doing something else. 

17 But please do, because he actually has the 

18 ability, as a budget writer of the conferee, to assist with that 

19 type of thing. 

20 Then the community college connect, and those 

21 channels of students, are there any others that you'd recommend 

22 on trying to broaden the diversity of the student population? 

23 MR. PREUSS: The one Senator Peace mentioned is 

24 something which is a trivial one, and I even am ashamed to 

25 mention it, but it really is a barrier. 

26 I mean, if you are giving a child who does not 

27 have college educated parents a document which they don't want 

28 and perhaps to even fill out, and it is so hard, it's harder 



than a 1040, that, I think, is an insult with regard to our 
commitment to outreach, and it should be rectified as fast as 
possible . 

Now we have a new method. We now do it on the 
computer. That's again singling out. That's again not reaching 

What we should have, we should have a form which 
is easier than the form even for our state universities. Our 
state universities are easier today. There is no excuse for 

I found that out when my son was filling out 
forms and did all with his left hand until he came to ours. 

I'm very proud to announce that he was accepted 
in three UC campuses. I'm sad to report that he chose not to go 
into either. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where did he go? 

MR. PREUSS: USC . He starts this fall. That 
alleviates the possibility of a conflict of interest. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I thank you very much. 

MR. PREUSS: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a couple questions I want 
to ask you before you leave. I'll probably be going to plowed 
ground on the questions asked by Senator Hughes, but I'll try to 
phrase them differently so maybe the answer will be same but 
from a different approach. 

I have a difficult time supporting anyone that 
would vote to raise fees for students without providing some way 


1 to work it, out unless they're physically unable to do so. 

2 Education's not free. It's supposed to be, but 

3 it isn't. There's nothing wrong with the students working to 

4 pay for their education. Many, many successful people have done 

5 that. 

6 So, the perception up there around the state, 

7 that's why they vote against bonds for prisons and for schools, 

8 because they have lost confidence. A lot of people think the 

9 Regents aren't very responsible when they support giving the 

10 President and Chancellor who 're retiring hundreds of thousands 

11 of dollars in a pension, whether it's by a prior commitment from 

12 a prior board, and then raise the fees of students. It doesn't 

13 make sense. The University is there to educate students, not to 

14 provide good retirements for your administrators. 

15 Can you explain your vote in support of raising 

16 fees for students without providing some way for them to work it 

17 out if they're physically capable to do so? 

18 MR. PREUSS: In the previous hearing a year ago, 

19 I was telling an anecdote where I found myself in a situation 

20 where suddenly I was told that my, in different dollars, in a 

21 different time, $200 quarterly fee was raised to $500 because I 

22 was reclassified as an out-of-state student, and nobody had told 

23 me until last moment. I had $200. I had $199 was the dollar 

24 last dollar to be put into it in my saving account, and not 

25 500. 

26 And I was rescued by a professor who bought a 

27 piece of grading software I had written and he used. So, I know 

28 the situation very well. 


I have not voted for a major increase in the 
three years I was here. I voted for that first stage of the 
professional school increase. And I did not vote for the second 
stage, because I felt that the whole plan had somehow or other 
gotten terribly mixed up and nobody really knew what was 

Certainly, I voted very strongly, and this is, I 
apologize, self-interest from a memory, that in the great 
wisdom, it was suggested, why don't we just increase the 
out-of-state fees, which primarily hit foreign students because 
they cannot become in-state residents. And if you listened 
today to the CEOs of the technology companies in this country, 
in your district, you'll find more of them with a heavy accent 
than you could possibly imagine. Those are people who generate 
jobs in our society, and we should not totally exclude them by 
just saying they're not a constituency, so let's raise their 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You voted no on that? 

MR. PREUSS: I voted no on that. That did not 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was the January, '97 
vote, which I hope, we'll never know, but I hope it isn't just 
confirmation politics but principle. Del Junco, Parsky, Preuss, 
all voted no to that increase. 

MR. PREUSS: I voted no on that because it still 
mentally hurt when it happened to me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good for you. 

SENATOR AYALA: I didn't quite understand your 


1 answer. 

2 You didn't vote for increase of student fees? 

3 MR. PREUSS: Correct. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me run through them, if we 

5 could. See if your memory is correct. 

6 January '94, I think you would have been on the 

7 panel at that time, there was a proposal to increase the fees by 

8 $620. 

9 Does that sound right, January, '94? 

10 MR. PREUSS: Senator -- 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Six hundred plus twenty. You 

12 were a member, I think, an alumni rep at that time. 

13 MR. PREUSS: Oh, I was in my first year of alumni 

14 Regent. I'm not allowed to vote. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You aren't? They have those 

16 rules, you don't get to vote? 

17 MR. PREUSS: No, because if you would be there 

18 for two years, you would have to confirm us. It's the 

19 confirmation process, so that first year, we are not voting. 

20 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: We'll let you vote. We'll do 

21 this, a little torture. 

22 Good. See, I told you, your timing is 

23 excellent. 

24 March, '95, there's a fee increase for selected 

25 professional schools. 

2 6 MR. PREUSS: That is correct. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You voted yes on that? 

28 MR. PREUSS: I believe -- 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was this medical and law? 

MR. PREUSS: Medical and law, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was your reasoning in 
this instance? 

MR. PREUSS: Because the discrepancy to other 
professional schools was so high. 

I have proposed in the past and am proposing 
that -- and one of the key arguments that people who go into 
public service would not be large earners and could pay back 
whatever money they -- we should have a program where we 
explicitly give aid, which, if people go into public service, 
will be forgiven. That would solve that problem, I think, 
better than we're doing right now. Actually, also then 
encourages people to do the thing we all believe they should do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, I get you. You 
were for increasing them, but forgiveness in the instance of 
low-income public service? 

MR. PREUSS: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Then the one. Senator, that he 
was talking about last was the non-resident and non-California 
tuition, and he voted against -- 

MR. PREUSS: I voted against that because that 
was also an increase of the professional school, and I voted 
against that one as well, because somehow or other, the 
explanation didn't make any sense. 

SENATOR AYALA: The perception up there, and 
sometimes perception is stronger than the truth, is that you 
folks are reckless with people's money when you give these 


1 Chancellors and Presidents all kinds of benefits at the expense 

2 of student fees. 

3 And I would support you if you did that. I don't 

4 think you're up there to do that. You're supposed to be 

5 providing education for everyone who's eligible, not just for 

6 the elite who have financial means. 

7 MR. PREUSS: Senator, I totally agree with your 

8 sentiment. I totally do. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On that topic, general 

10 philosophy with respect to undergraduate student fees? 

11 MR. PREUSS: Undergraduate student fees should be 

12 a measure of very last resort. 

13 I believe very strongly in the sentiment of the 

14 Master Plan. We still should be bound by the strong sentiment 

15 of the Master Plan. That is against that sentiment. 

16 So, it has to be a measure of last resort. 

17 SENATOR AYALA: What's your position on banning 

18 donor-based admissions, where you have some influential alumni 

19 providing some funds for the University, and they get preference 

20 over other students. 

21 We have information that on a number of 

22 occasions, that student wouldn't have passed the entrance exam, 

23 but because the father or mother were good alumni and provided 

24 funds, they were able to attend the University. 

25 What is your position? 

26 MR. PREUSS: There should be nobody accepted to 

27 the University of California who's not qualified to go there. 

28 At the same time, I believe I, as a Regent, have 


absolutely no right to give any kind of favors of that sort 
whatsoever. And I have a hard time to see who else in the 
University should have those rights. 

This will be an issue which will be discussed at 
length in the upcoming meetings. 7\nd we will have to 
consolidate our opinions with those of the Chancellors and the 
faculty in our shared governance, but we'll have to come up with 
something which is better than what we have today. 

SENATOR AYALA: We were told yesterday by Dr. Del 
Junco that Regent Connerly was premature in introducing that, a 
policy procedure whereby this would be banned, and you folks 
turned him down. 

MR. PREUSS: We better get to it at some point. 
I mean, we have to make this decision, and just postponing it 
doesn't help it much. 

So, I don't agree with it, no. 

SENATOR AYALA: He didn't go through the proper 
process to get that proposal before the Regents. Is that what 
took place? 

MR. PREUSS: I think it was procedural. 

SENATOR AYALA: Has anyone reintroduced it with 
the proper process to make sure it doesn't happen again? 

MR. PREUSS: That's the way I understand it, 
correct. This will have to be solved with us. It is in some 
process to come up in the very near future again. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't have any more questions, 
Mr. Chairman. 

MR. PREUSS: Thank you very much. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Don't go away. 

2 The July meeting includes some consideration of 

3 domestic partner benefits for members of the University 

4 community. 

5 Do you have a disposition with respect to the 

6 matter? 

7 MR. PREUSS: I believe that to a large extent 

8 that this is a labor relation issue. We have to be at 

9 competitive place with regards to our environment to others, and 

10 we have to come up with a resolution of it. 

11 There are all kinds of varieties of that one. 

12 What exactly the boundaries are. I have not had time to study 

13 those yet. They are coming in front us in the July meeting. 

14 I'm looking forward to that one. I'm looking forward to 

15 studying it very carefully. 

16 I'm not violently opposed to it. I'm not ready 

17 to give the ship away. 7\nd I would like to learn what the 

18 parameters are and will vote accordingly. 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, your assessment would be 

20 essentially fiscal and labor relations, or competitive hiring 

21 policy? 

22 MR. PREUSS: It's a part of doing the business of 

23 the University. 

2 4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In the time you've been on the 

25 Board, does any vote stand out in your mind as the toughest, 

26 most difficult? 

27 MR. PREUSS: That's a hard question. I tend to 

28 take them pretty seriously, all of them. No, that's wrong. 


There are lots of them which are purely procedural, and those I 
do not take to. 

The fee issues are always very problematic 
because they make us weigh all the different factors of the 

I believe that there are issues coming up with 
regards to how aggressive we are with regard to our outreach, 
which I will take very -- I have to watch to not take something 
too personally. This is -- I will probably be very involved in 
that one. And I don't like to not get as far in things as I 
could, so that those I consider hard. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What name of a fellow Regent 
comes to mind that you find most persuasive, influential, on 
your own thinking? 

MR. PREUSS: We had a lot of Regents in the past 
who were true statesmen, and who had a very even-handed approach 
to it, and non-political approach to it. 

I think if you say -- ask me that question at 
this point, they all come. There's a whole set of it which 
would go onto the top of that list. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a name? 

MR. PREUSS: Of course, Regent Bergener, who did 
great service for the University, being strong, opinionated 
about many issues. And some of them I didn't agree, some of 
them I agreed. But he always was even-handed and always made 
the process of coming to decisions an easier one. It helped us 
all. We really miss him dearly. 

And Regent Williams was a Regent, collegian from 


1 Fresno, was a very, very steady influence in many things. 

2 And sat there with a very strong stature. Today, 

3 we find ourselves on occasion to insult witnesses and to do 

4 things which, I think, are not consistent with the dignity of 

5 the office. 

6 One of my private little views is that I would 

7 like to work hard to restore the dignity of the office. Restore 

8 is too strong a word, to make it stronger again. 

9 CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: I understand. Well, there has 

10 been, certainly because of these recent political controversies, 

11 more involvement in the rough and tumble political world of the 

12 University and its policies. That maybe was true in some prior 

13 era, though I was student at UC Berkeley; was thrown out because 

14 I was too involved in certain political things they disapproved 

15 of. 

16 MR. PREUSS: I only sold software, so somehow or 

17 other -- 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the Reagan era was 

19 tumultuous also with respect to University governance. 

20 Maybe the good old days seem better than they did 

21 at the time they were happening, I'm not sure. 

22 The point is to get you to comment a bit on the 

23 dispute about affirmative action. I think it's very important 

24 to say that, because there's been misunderstandings that have 

25 even been recommunicated by University leaders, like Chancellor 

26 Young, that somehow there is a single issue litmus test through 

27 which we screen Regents. It's not true. 

28 What we're trying to do is to figure out how are 


we going to deal with these matters. You weren't there for that 
episode, but it seemed like the chief executive, who has 
considerable influence as a Regent, had determined that the 
breaking political issue that he could associate himself with 
was the affirmative action dispute. And then Regents sort of 
stumbled all over themselves, quickly trying to comply with his 
political agenda. 

Now, I don't doubt for a minute that Ward 
Connerly is very sincere about his beliefs about it, and so I 
don't attribute to entirely politics. But it felt like at least 
the sort of catalytic event was essentially political, and then 
there were various people who agreed for political or 
philosophical reasons. 

You weren't there. With a bit of hindsight, how 
would you evaluate the positive and negative outcomes associated 
with that policy change? 

MR. PREUSS : I am, as you know, not affiliated 
with one or the other side of the house. I have supported both 
sides actively, and I will continue to do so, according to the 
individuals involved. 

I am -- and one of our alumni Regents testified 
yesterday and said that the Regents body was a particularly 
political body. 

I was an alumni Regent the two years before him, 
and when he came, told him this was coherent body of people who 
all believe strongly the best for the University and are working 
very hard, and this is a collegial body which is fun to be on. 
And I was on this body feeling extremely good and enjoying it. 


1 That went away as we were going into the 

2 political arena. I believe it is one of my duties, which I take 

3 very seriously to -- and I will tell you my methodology -- to 

4 remove the political aspects of this body again as to whatever 

5 extent I possibly can. 

6 I felt when I left as an alumni Regent that I was 

7 good friends with every one of the Regents. And that probably 

8 led to my nomination, because, you know, I'm unusual nomination, 

9 because they went to the Governor and said, "We want Peter 

10 back." T^d I was with very good terms with every one of them 

11 and could build consensuses around the issues we talked. And I 

12 do a lot of talking with individuals and building consensuses. 

13 Now, when you put a litmus test like this into 

14 it, this whole process becomes much, much harder. The question 

15 is should we ever have -- 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And I'm not suggesting that we 

17 do or should. 

18 MR. PREUSS: No, I mean, we did, too. I was 

19 looking at our side of the issue. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

21 MR. PREUSS: And I wonder whether we ever should 

22 have touched this particular area in the first place. That is 

23 probably something we should have left to the politicians and 

24 left to the people of California. 

25 And we have to rebuild that. I consider that a 

26 personal responsibility of mine, and I think -- I hope you heard 

27 that when you heard my colleagues talk about me. This is what I 

28 want to do, and this is where I spend a lot of time. 


I go to most all events where Regents are asked 
to attend. I mean, I have darn robe on all the time. But 
that's where you have a chance to talk. That's where you have a 
chance to build an understanding, a chance to build an 
environment where you can solve problems. 

I was not, distinctly not, appointed to this 
position to represent the opinions of the Governor, whoever the 
Governor is or may be in the future. 

I am here, I think I was asked to represent my 
own opinions. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER : Other questions? 

I would just want to close by indicating that 
your sincere commitment to helping maintain and create the 
finest university in the world is quite obvious, and your 
enthusiasm for the task is clear. 

I don't think you're going to have any problem 
being confirmed, but I do want to go back and consult with 
members of both caucuses, and most especially my own, but to 
make sure they're familiar with some of the specific issues that 
we've talked about today so they can make an informed judgment. 

Thank you very much. 

MR. PREUSS: Thank you very much for giving me 
the time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Parsky, come on up if you 
want. I think we can start. 

Senator Polanco and Senator Rosenthal have both 
made comment in caucus and otherwise about why they believe you 
should be confirmed. We'll let them talk for themselves if they 


1 get out of a committee hearing that they're currently caught up 

2 in. 

3 Do you want to start with a comment? 

4 MR. PARSKY: Yes, if it's all right. I have just 

5 some notes, and I thought I'd just make a few introductory 

6 comments, and then be happy to answer any questions. 

7 I consider the opportunity to serve on the Board 

8 of Regents as an honor, one that involves the highest level of 

9 public trust. 

10 Today, I'd like to provide you with my views on a 

11 few subjects, and then, as I said, be more than happy to answer 

12 any questions. 

13 The subjects I thought I might just touch on were 

14 some general observations about the University of California. 

15 Some general thoughts regarding the qualities that I believe are 

16 needed of a Regent. Generally why I'd like to be a Regent. And 

17 then to comment briefly on, in Senator Lockyer's expression, I 

18 think, what I am really like. 

19 First, some general observations at least from my 

20 perspective about the University of California. 

21 As a number of leading educators have said, our 

22 society today is increasingly knowledge based. This 

23 development, coupled with the technological revolution that we 

24 are experiencing, will have a major impact on the educational 

25 process itself. 

26 Our society today, I believe, requires a 

27 university that's large enough to serve the growing population 

28 of California, but flexible enough to respond to the needs of a 


diverse, educated people, and the research that's necessary to 
keep up. Within this framework, I believe the key to the 
University maintaining excellence will depend on its ability to 
maintain the highest quality in three areas: the quality of its 
faculty; the quality of its student body; and the quality of the 
environment or physical plant in which education is provided. 

The University of California is an $11 billion a 
year — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Quality of faculty -- 

MR. PARSKY: The quality of the student body, and 
the quality of the environment, the physical plant. 

The University of California is an $11 billion a 
year enterprise, employing over 150,000 people. Because of its 
size and strength in teaching, research, and public service, the 
University is the source of more benefits to our state and to 
the communities that house each of our campuses than any other 
single institution. 

Every great university, I believe, embraces a 
diversity of thought and opinion. But the University of 
California, as a public university, in the most diverse state, 
has a further obligation of reflecting the mix of California's 
population in the mix of its students, faculty, and staff. 

I believe that both forms of diversity, a wide 
range of intellectual perspectives and broad representation of 
California's population, are indispensable in the mission as a 
public university. 

Just a few thoughts, general thoughts regarding 
the qualities of a Regent. 

42 ■ 

1 First of all/ I don't believe that any litmus 

2 test relating to any one particular issue should be applied. 

3 Rather, I feel it's the ability to exercise careful, fair 
A judgment that should be determinative. 

5 Further, a Regent must be able to separate his or 

6 her personal views from what is in the best interests of the 

7 institution and of the people of California. 

8 As one of my colleagues once said to me, a Regent 

9 has to have the ability to step back and adopt the institutional 

10 view. 

11 And I would emphasize two other qualities: open 

12 mindedness, being willing to listen to the various voices of the 

13 University and the community, and appreciate the importance of 

14 shared governance with faculty and administration; and 

15 independence. 

16 The University should be removed from politics as 

17 much as possible. I don't believe it's possible to avoid 

18 politics totally. The budget process, the University is very 

19 much a part of the budget process; the public nature of the 

20 University; and even the Regents appointment and confirmation 

21 process. 

22 But I believe that a Regent should guard his or 

23 her independence very closely. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would this be an appropriate 

25 place to interrupt for purposes of Senator Polanco popping in, 

26 and then pick up where you left off? 

2 7 MR. PARSKY: Sure, no problem. 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He's in committee, I know. 

4 3 

They're debating important things like card rooms near 
cemeteries, or something, 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR POLANCO: That's the other one. 

Yes, Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you very 

I'm really pleased and honored, to be brief with 
you, to lend my support and to ask the Committee Members to 
support this candidacy of Mr. Parsky. 

As you have probably read, he brings a tremendous 
amount of distinguished service, both in the federal level in 
his capacity there in the Treasury Department, but here in his 
capacity as a Regent, a Trustee at Princeton University for ten 

He served on the Foundation Board of the UC San 
Diego. He served on the Board of Governors at the Anderson 
School over at UCLA and has really demonstrated a true 
commitment to the standards and high principles of higher 

So, coupled with his professional expertise, his 
public service both in government and in the institution of 
higher learning, I just want to lend my support and ask that we 
support his candidacy, the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, would you permit me 
to ask publicly a difficult question? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Parsky very political in 
the sense that, historically, he's been active as a major donor. 


1 SENATOR POLANCO: Chair of the Republican 

2 Convention. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Right, the Convention and 

4 causes and candidates. 

5 No, I don't mind that, but I'm trying to work 

6 through in my own mind how I would distinguish between that role 

7 and the gentleman we talked about yesterday afternoon. Are they 

8 different? Are there other factors that weigh positively or 

9 negatively? How do you work through that? 

10 SENATOR POLANCO: I would answer your question in 

11 the following manner. 

12 The individual who I spoke against yesterday 

13 clearly demonstrated a pattern of conduct of engaging in the 

14 political arena fully on initiatives, on issues, went beyond/ I 

15 think, that crossing the line. 

16 I think here, I recognize that he had a major 

17 role in the convention, as many of us partake in our side of the 

18 aisle. 

19 But I have not read, or I have any evidence of 

20 going beyond, crossing the line. I think that is the 

21 distinguishing standard that I've applied. 

22 CHAIRMTVN LOCKYER: I understand. Thank you. 
2 3 SENATOR POLANCO: Thank you. 

24 SENATOR AYALA: Senator, yesterday you spoke very 

25 strongly against Del Junco because he supported increase of 

26 student fees, which I also do. 

27 The gentleman here to your right has done that. 
2 8 How can you turn around and support one and not the other? 


SENATOR POLANCO: I base it, and I go beyond just 
the student fee issue. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's nothing more important to 
me than that. If you deny students of a lower income bracket 
entrance because of their economic status, it's completely 

SENATOR POLANCO: And I agree with you, and I 
disagreed with the Regents, every one of them who voted to 
increase the student fees. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: ' I'm not sure he has. 

MR. P7VRSKY: Excuse me. 

I was not a part of the Regents for any of the 
increases in student fees. 

SENATOR AYALA: I must have phony information, 
sir, because I have information that you supported increase in 
student fees for undergraduate and academic graduate students, 
or fees for students in professional programs. 

MR. PARSKY: I don't know what date that relates 
to, but I joined the Board of Regents in July of last year. 
I've only been involved — 

SENATOR AYALA: You have never supported 
increasing student fees without providing some kind of a way to 
repay them? 

MR. PARSKY: I would be more than happy to answer 
your questions about the student fee issue, but I don't believe 
the issue of voting on student fees came up -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Professional fee at schools 


1 MR. PARSKY: The professional schools may have 

2 come up then, but I think -- 

3 SENATOR AYALA: No, I'm talking about 

4 undergraduate fees. 

5 MR. PARSKY: No. 

6 SENATOR AYALA: You haven't done that, so I 

7 apologize for having the wrong information here. 

8 SENATOR POLT^CO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

9 Members . 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Alpert, is he a 

11 constituent of yours, too? 

12 SENATOR ALPERT: Almost. In San Diego, we take 

13 great pride in anyone from San Diego County. 

14 CHAIRM/U^ LOCKYER: He would be in Senator 

15 Craven's district? 

16 SENATOR ALPERT: He is Senator Craven's 

17 constituent; that's correct, but again -- 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you convince him to 

19 think about running for the State Senate? 

20 SENATOR ALPERT: Well, I hadn't thought about 

21 that. There's an idea. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can confirm the Regents 

23 then. 

24 SENATOR ALPERT: I just again wanted to take a 

25 moment to introduce another person from San Diego County. And 

26 again, an extremely intelligent person, a person, I think, who 

27 obviously, as we've seen, has had great success professionally, 

28 but has gone so far beyond that, because with his professional 


success, he has then been willing to give back to the community 
in so many ways. I think that you can see from his record, 
again, that very often it has been in the area of higher 
education, be it from his own alma mater of Princeton, to his 
work at UCLA, to his work On the Foundation at UCSD, and now 
being willing to serve on the Regents. 

And I think, again last night, as we heard 
testimony from some people, a special expertise he brings is his 
background in finance. Certainly, that is always an important 
issue, but I think becomes even more relevant as we struggle 
with some of the issues, like the medical schools, how to keep 
things in the public good, and also run things in a fiscally 
sound manner. 

And I think that his expertise and his ability 
add and bring another dimension to the Regents. So, again, I 
feel like he's a very qualified person, and we're proud that he 
makes San Diego his home. 

Thank you. 

CfiAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sorry for the interruption. 
Let them get back to committees. 

Can you pick up where you left off? 

MR. PARSKY: Sure. I just had two other brief 

topics . 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Take your time. Time is not a 

MR. PARSKY: One, as I mentioned, was just a few 
comments on why I'd like to be a Regent. I have been one; I'd 
like to continue. 


1 I view it as a high form of public service. I 

2 was brought up to think about ways in which you can serve your 

3 community/ and higher education has always been of major 

4 interest to me. 

5 I think I can bring something to this role. My 

6 experience in the financial investment world, I believe, can be 
1 helpful. I think my experience with other educational 

8 institutions offers some degree of background that will be 

9 helpful. And I think the international experience that I've had 

10 can also be of help to an institution that is increasingly 

11 international in its reach. 

12 And finally, I am willing to devote the 

13 considerable time and effort that is necessary to carry out this 

14 job, and the time commitment is very significant. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How much is it? 

16 MR. PARSKY: Well, I can only talk for the past 

17 year, but it's two and sometimes three full days a month, with, 

18 I think, one a month off. TVnd then there are other committee 

19 meetings. I serve, for instance, on the Selection Committee for 

20 the Chancellor at UCLA, and I think there were five or six -- I 

21 think five of those meetings. 

22 And as other issues arise, there are select 

23 committees. So, it is considerable. 

24 The location of the meetings have been, for the 

25 most part, in San Francisco, but we just had a meeting at 

26 Irvine, and I believe that there's now going to be an effort, 

27 which I happen to think is very good, at other campuses. 

28 Finally, and this is a little, I think, the most 


difficult subject, but just to offer a few thoughts on what I am 
like, because I think that, to some extent, that is an important 
consideration on your part. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're right. 

MR. PARSKY: It's difficult, I think, to 
characterize oneself, but hopefully, enough people who know me 
personally and have worked with me on Princeton's Board, on the 
Board of Regents during the past year, and in other community 
activities have either written or spoken about my honesty and 
integrity, and have offered you a perspective on me. 

Since these people, I think, represent a broad 
cross-section of philosophical and political views, I hope that 
you find that their perspective transcends politics. 

From my perspective, I feel very fortunate. I 
have a wonderful wife who attended UCLA, and two well-educated 
and caring children. My daughter had the good fortune of 
attending Boalt Law School. My son is currently at the Kellog 
School at Northwestern. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is Laura practicing law now? 

MR. PARSKY: She's in the Honors Program at the 
Justice Department. Now, we can debate whether that's 
practicing law or learning, but I leave that to you, but yes. 

My family means a great deal to me, 

I view my responsibilities as a Regent as one of 
true fiduciary. As a Regent, I believe I'm accountable to the 
people of California and to my own conscience. 

If you decide to confirm me, I certainly will do 
my utmost to be open-minded, fair, and independent, and always 


1 decide matters based on what I believe is in the best interest 

2 of the institution and of the people of California. 

3 Thank you very much. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Ayala. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: I have question I should have 

6 asked the other candidate as well. 

7 You appear to be a good family man and proud your 

8 family, as you indicated. 

9 But as member of the Board of Regents, what are 

10 your views about recognizing domestic partnership and providing 

11 health care and other benefits to the employees, perhaps at the 

12 expense of the students in terms of financial assistance? What 

13 is your position on that, recognizing domestic partnerships for 

14 employees? 

15 MR. PARSKY: I don't have a defined position as 

16 yet. I listened at the last meeting to a request that this 

17 matter be fully aired and presented to us, which I now 

18 understand it will. 

19 I was a little concerned to hear that there has 

20 been considerable delay in terms of getting the views of the 

21 Academic Senate to the Board. It's coming. 

22 I would endorse the comments that Peter Preuss 

23 made in terms of wanting to pay particular attention to the 

24 economic impacts and the labor impact of it, but I haven't heard 

25 enough to really come to a definitive conclusion. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: Does the City Ordinance, or 

27 whatever directive there is, affect the University and their 

28 employees as well as it pertains to the domestic partnership, in 


spite of the fact that it could watering down funds that go for 

MR. PARSKY: I think you have to take all of that 
carefully into account. 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't have a position on it 

MR. PARSKY: No, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes, do you have 
anything you'd wish to ask? 


Where did you grow up, Mr. Parsky? 

MR. PARSKY: I was born and raised in West 
Hartford, Connecticut. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How did you choose Princeton 

MR. PARSKY: Well, I went to a secondary school 
in Connecticut called Suffield Academy. And I was very 
interested in athletics, and the soccer coach took me to 
Princeton. No one from the school at Suffield had gone to 
Princeton in, I think, about ten years, but I got -- I was taken 
there by the soccer coach. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When you attended Princeton, was 
it still all male? 

MR. PARSKY: Yes, it was. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When you were on the Trustee 
Board at Princeton, had the University become co-ed at that 
point, or had they become co-ed before you were on the Board of 

52 ■ 

1 Trustees? 

2 MR. PARSKY: They became co-educational before I 

3 went on the Board. 

4 SENATOR HUGHES: How did you feel about their 

5 admitting females after it being historically all male? 

6 MR. PARSKY: I was very supportive of 

7 co-education. Although I wasn't on the Board, I did participate 

8 in a number of discussions about the movement toward 

9 co-education. 

10 I felt it was extremely important, and took an 

11 advocacy role within certain of the alumni groups in endorsing 

12 co-education very strongly. 

13 SENATOR HUGHES: What kinds of attitudes did you 

14 hear from people who wanted to keep the tradition of it being a 

15 predominantly male institution? T^d how did you challenge those 

16 attitudes? 

17 MR. PARSKY: I think the predominant view was 

18 oriented around the word "tradition". 

19 I happen to believe in certain concepts that 

20 underlie that word. I think tradition is important, and I think 

21 teaching young people from the past, and learning from the past, 

22 and understanding what has gone on is important. 

23 But I think you can cloud-over other more 

24 important things with that word. And what we tried to do, those 

25 of us that were advocates of co-education, was to explain how 

26 isolated a campus Princeton became. And although there were 

27 elements of tradition, educated on a campus when you're only 

28 exposed to other males, and when your world is that isolated, 


doesn't prepare you well for an integrated society. 

So, the way in which we responded to these cries 
for tradition was really more oriented toward explaining what a 
college education is really about. Part and parcel of it is 
preparing one for a role in society. And if you create an 
isolated environment that is surreal or has no semblance of 
involvement with the outside world, you're depriving students of 
the real benefits of an education. 

So, that was the point of view that we advocated. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I, myself, came from a deprived 
all-girl university, and was delighted after I graduated that 
they started to admit males. So, I know exactly what you mean. 

How do you think of your skills and insight that 
you developed as a Trustee of Princeton and the changes that the 
University went through prepare you for the change in the 
make-up of the student body at UC, and the make-up of our state? 

MR. PARSKY: I think on the one hand, 
deliberations on an university board and experience of 
deliberating issues on a board are very helpful, because you 
begin to appreciate the importance of, as I described in a few 
of my remarks, of adopting what I would call an institutional 
point of view. That you bring certain experiences, and you 
bring certain points of view that are personal in nature, but 
it's really important, I think, to be able to do that. 

And so, I think my experience on the Princeton 
Board helped me in being able to take personal points of view 
and bring them to bear, but ultimately adopt what is in the best 
interest of the institution. 


1 Second, I think that sitting around the table 

2 with other Trustees and deliberating and understanding different 

3 points of view is helpful in the process. 

A And third, the good fortune of being involved in 

5 such a high quality university, where research is 

6 well-respected, something that I have grown to really believe in 

7 deeply, I think is good preparation. Understanding how 

8 important a research university is to maintaining its quality, 

9 maintaining the quality of its faculty. All of those factors, I 

10 think, are helpful. 

11 What I think is not as helpful, and what I have 

12 learned in the past year, is there is quite a sharp difference 

13 between a private university and a public university, and that 

14 is a challenge. It's been a challenge for me in trying to 

15 understand how to best perform your responsibilities as a Regent 

16 in a public university context. 

17 In particular, the fact that I don't think it is 

18 -- I don't think it is difficult or inappropriate or that 

19 different to be accountable to the public. I think as a 

20 trustee, you are accountable, whether you're at a private 

21 institution or at a public. 

22 What is different is the public nature of many of 

23 the deliberations. That is a challenge, because often you don't 

24 have an opportunity to go through careful thought and to really 

25 separate what I call the political from the substantive for the 

26 university. And that is what I think every Regent needs to 

27 continually remind himself of. 

28 So, I think that that is a challenge, that I 


don't think my experience at Princeton was directly applicable 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you feel about the 
charter school, high school, that was tried at UC San Diego? 
Did you support that? What was your feeling about the faculty 
rejecting that idea? 

MR. PARSKY: The basic concept I did speak to 
Peter Preuss about, and am quite supportive of. 

I don't think I fully understand exactly why the 
faculty took the position that they did. It hasn't been 
explained to me, other than some general concern about the cost 
benefit analysis. How many actual students that come within 
this concept will be helped and will actually enroll in the 
University of California. 

I think that is a valid issue to be aired, but 
and I'd welcome an opportunity to hear out the faculty, if that 
is really where they were coming from. I don't know for sure, 
but I think it's worth hearing, because with a variety of 
different things you can do to maintain the commitment to 
diversity, you have to choose an among a variety of different 
approaches, all within what might be referred as a commitment to 
outreach and a commitment to maintaining diversity. And in 
making those choices, it is important to assess the cost benefit 
analysis of doing it. 

Now, with that introduction, I would say the 
concept of having under-privileged or students of economic 
disadvantage on the campus of the University as a model and as a 
symbol that the University is committed, I think, is an 


1 important concept, and I would endorse it. 

2 SENATOR HUGHES: What about economic mixture 

3 rather than just economically disadvantaged? If you had 

4 affluent, less affluent, almost poverty-stricken students all 

5 mixed together in terms of experimentation on a university 

6 campus, would that have any value? Or do you think it's 

7 inappropriate? 

8 MR. PARSKY: Well, I think the more diverse the 

9 groupings in learning, the better. 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: So that if this is the 

11 philosophy behind this particular UC San Diego charter school, I 

12 heard them say under privileged. I didn't hear them say a 

13 charter school with the economic mixture and ethnic diversity, 

14 the kind of school that I perceived of. 

15 Do you think it would be better, or do you think 

16 it would be a nice experiment and that's all? 

17 MR. PARSKY: It's hard for me to assess what the 

18 outcome would be. I do think conceptually that creating an 

19 environment with the diverse mix you described would be 

20 positive. 

21 SENATOR HUGHES: How do you feel about the low 

22 enrollment of students at UC schools of law and UC medicine? 

23 MR. PARSKY: It's a matter of concern. 

24 SENATOR HUGHES: Because of, you know, the action 

25 to abandon affirmative action? It's a matter of concern. 

26 How will you articulate, or do you plan on 

27 articulating your concern in terms of some action or proposal to 

28 make it possible that we have a better mix, and we're not 



depriving people, or disencouraging them from applying for UC 

MR. PARSKY: It is a matter of concern. What — 
I do think that a significant portion of this matter relates to 
psychology, what I would classify as psychology. People feeling 
that they are not welcome, or that they cannot make it into the 
admission pool. 

And I think that efforts need to be made to 
address that psychology on the part of the University. And 
there are a number of things that can be done from the 
admissions offices of the graduate schools in order to put 
meaning to reaching out to students. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Like what? I know that the 
University of California campuses have many different outreach 
programs in the surrounding community of their specific 
campuses . 

What else could be done? If I get my 
Constitutional Amendment that's going to say that the twelve -- 
and I'm not saying this percentage is a constant, because it's 
flexible, it might be changing as we attempt to negotiate it, 
that students then could feel that the top percentile of their 
high school would be admissible to the University of 
California . 

How do you feel about that concept in terms of 
counteracting the fact that fewer and fewer of people are 
applying for undergraduate or for the graduate programs of the 

MR. PARSKY: I think there are two different 


issues. Both relate to the underlying need to maintain a 
diverse student body at the undergraduate and graduate level. 

I think the Constitutional Amendment that you 
described, I think, is an interesting concept. I would -- my 
understanding is that the administration, the President's 
office, is undertaking an analysis of that now. I welcome the 
thoughts of the University about that. 

In particular, I would want to know how the 
Amendment would impact, not just eligibility but admission 
because just becoming eligible isn't necessarily going to solve 
the problems of how we can continue to maintain a diverse body. 
So, I would like to see how that would work. 

So, I'm interested in that in that concept. I'm 
not sure that there is an immediate correlation between a 
concept like that and the need to correct some of the concerns 
that we have now seen at the graduate level. 

I think their efforts, efforts like anything from 
special mailings to targeted school visits, to things -- the 
admissions -- I think underlying the -- what I would call the 
new era that we are living in, in terms of how to maintain 
diversity, is not standing for a lazy admissions office. I 
mean, both in terms of the way in which they evaluate 
applications, and the way in which they encourage qualified 
students to apply. 

And resources need to be applied to that, and we 
as Regents have to hold the administration accountable for the 
efforts that they're making to make that happen. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you plan on personally 


holding them accountable? Are you going to wait for a special 
hearing, or special subject matter on the agenda about this 
issue? What do you plan on doing in this year of 1997 to see 
that 1998 looks a little different? 

MR. P7VRSKY: Well, first, if you'll confirm me, I 
will be able to do something. 

But that aside, I think in this area there is a 
sincere commitment on the part of the Regents, all of the 
Regents, to take steps that will maintain a diverse student 

In order to give that meaning regularly, we, 
either on an individual basis or on a body basis, need to 
continue to ask what is happening. 

We will get statistics, annually we will get 
statistics. But I don't think that we will get any resistance 
from the administration in terms of them coming forward and 
saying, "This is what we are doing; this is what the admissions 
office is doing." 

And I think it is important to take a measured 
approach to this statistical information that is coming, but not 
sit back and wait until we're five or six years into this, and 
we're locked into a student body that is not diverse. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Between 1968, that is, 
completing work at Virginia Law School, and '74, which is 
working in the Treasury Department, where were you? What were 
you doing? 

MR. PARSKY: When I graduated from the University 


1 of Virginia Law School/ I was a lawyer as an associate in the 

2 law firm Mudge, Rose, Guthrie and Alexander in New York, and I 

3 worked there for three-and-a-half years. 

4 And then a former professor from the University 

5 of Virginia Law School, where I went to law school, was 

6 Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy in the Treasury Department, 
1 and he asked me to come work as his assistant at the end of 

8 1971. His is name was Edwin Cohen, and that was to be one 

9 year. And one year turned into a number, as I assumed several 

10 different positions within the Treasury, all from, I think, it 

11 was October of 1971 until 1977. 

12 In '74, I was confirmed as Assistant Secretary of 

13 the Treasury. 

14 SENATOR HUGHES: On that, I just want to make an 

15 editorial comment. 

16 You were a perfect example of how Caucasians have 

17 the privilege of networking with one another, that your 

18 professor then had a chance to ask you to hire, and that's the 

19 thing that ethnic minorities don't have an opportunity to do, 

20 So it's a wonderful thing that happened to you. 

21 MR. PARSKY: I agree. 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: You knew someone, who knew 

23 someone, who knew what was available, and you got there. 

24 MR. PARSKY: Well, I would go beyond that. I 

25 think that the direct relationship between my educational 

26 experience, this was a former professor of mine, that brought me 

27 into a whole different environment. So, I agree with you. 

28 And I do feel very fortunate. And I would like 


to do which I can to encourage this to happen to many others. 


CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: On behalf of my conservative 
colleagues that aren't here, I want to ask about the presence of 
the Trilateral Commission on your resume. Why don't you tell us 
about that? 

MR. PARSKY: Well when I left the Treasury 
Department in 1977, I was invited to be a member of the 
Trilateral Commission. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who invites you? How does 
that work? 

MR. PARSKY: There is -- at least then, I don't 
know now -- there was a nominating committee of which, at that 
point, I believe, David Rockefeller was the chairman. And I had 
met and had some dealings with Mr. Rockefeller when I was in the 
Treasury Department and he got to know me. And he called me and 
said, "Would you like to come on to this group?" 

And it didn't have the kind of notoriety it has 
today, but it wouldn't have made any difference to me if I 
thought it was an interesting group, and that I thought I could 
learn something from and potentially contribute to, I would have 

And I think I was a member of that commission for 
three years, and I think it's three years the new -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you learn something? 

MR. P7\RSKY: A little; a little. 

I think that there is a -- there is a real 
interest in international economic relations centered in New 


York. I think with the Council on Foreign Relations, in part 
with the Trilateral Commission, with a number of others, there 
is a sincere interest in international economics. So, I think 
there is some benefit there, and I think I did learn some things 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were an English major, 
though, as an undergraduate? 

MR. PARSKY: Yes, and I taught school for a year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When was that? 

MR. PARSKY: That was before I went to law 
school. I taught English, and almost went to graduate school in 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where did you teach? 

MR. PTIRSKY: Suf field Academy in Connecticut, 

high school 

English lit? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any particular emphasis in 

MR. P7VRSKY: It was really more 20th Century 
literature, but there were a number of different books that I 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a favorite? This 
goes to the who am I segment. 

MR. PARSKY: Yes, I gathered; I gathered. 

I enjoyed Moby Dick . One little incident I 
thought was particularly -- I've kind of carried with me. 
There's an incident on the boat of a man that is weaving a mat, 
and there are a lot of different ways. There's a horizontal 
pattern, there's a vertical pattern, and there's a diagonal 



There are a lot of ways in which you can 
interpret what those patterns mean, but one way that I endorsed 
for my students was that the horizontal pattern represents what 
you are born with, your heredity. The vertical pattern 
represents experience, what your environment kind of teaches you 
and the experience. And the diagonal pattern represents chance, 
over which you have no control, but which, like a bolt of 
lightning, can come throughout your experience. And it's a 
relative combination of those three factors that kind of make 
you, if you, will what you are. 

And, in any event, that's kind of a long one 
there, but I enjoyed that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I read Tarot cards that way. 

If you had to define the mission of the 
University singularly -- that is, not to say, well, gee, there's 
five or six different things we do -- you've mentioned research 
on a number of occasions as significant to you. 

Maybe there are choices, like transmission of 
knowledge and values, or preparing students for the 21st Century 
might be a different notion. 

You're too quick a lawyer. You're going to tell 
me that these are all the same, probably. 

Is there any sort of mission statement that 
strikes you as basic and fundamental? 

MR. PARSKY: Well, I think the University, the 
public nature of this University is particularly telling to me. 
The research aspect of it is as well, and its involvement in our 


state. Those three things are of particular telling importance 
to this University, and separated really, the combination -- the 
combination of those three things, separated from many others. 

Some are public universities, some are research 
oriented, and others have some impact on their state, but I 
don't think quite in combination. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Parsky, you have what I 
think would be fair to describe as sort of a Brahman personal 
history. You went to a prep school, and you didn't have the 
striped tie today, but I was sort of expecting it. And, you 
know, private college, and on the board. There's a lot. And 
the nature of your law practice. You obviously have been 
enormously successful, and from everything I can see, you 
deserve to be. 

MR. PARSKY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've commented you've been 
struck by the sort of public role and responsibility of being a 
UC Regent. 

How does that sort of populist responsibility 
square with the more aristocratic background that you've had? 

MR. PARSKY: I was not born an aristocrat. I 
came from a middle-class family. My parents worked. My father 
grew up in a household where there were four brothers, through 
the Depression. Three worked so one could go to college, and 
the one became a lawyer and a judge. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that him? 

MR. PARSKY: No, the other brother. 

My father worked so I could go to school. And 



education was the number one priority. 

And my whole life, I have been reminded of the 
importance of giving back to a community that has been good to 
you. And that, in a very brief nutshell, is why I'm interested 
in doing this, without any frills about it. It is not a title. 
It has nothing to do with power or authority. 

It's a sincere desire from someone that has been 
fortunate. And yes, I have experienced parts of our society 
that are privileged. 

But I think the best way one can grow from that 
privilege is to then look at ways in which you can improve your 
environment and your community. That's the way I think. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're right. I agree. And 
that's how I see you. 

MR. PARSKY: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's some question about 
lawsuits, and I want to get it on the record. Colleagues have 
asked, are there legal matters that we should know about with 
respect to current and former business partners that might have 
induced complaints to the Bar, or anything else that you want to 
make sure to explain to us? 

MR. PARSKY: No. I think it's a matter of public 
record that in the late '80s, there were some business dealings 
that I had with a former colleague of mine from the Treasury 
Department. All matters relating to that were resolved in 
1992. There's -- all matters between him and me have been 

I don't think there's any matter that I would 


raise that should cause any concern at all. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You just recently had to or 
participated in selecting a Chancellor. Tell us a little about 

What seemed to be special about the choice you 
made? I assume there were lots of very well qualified people 
you were looking at. What made the difference? 

MR. PARSKY: Well, first, it was a difficult 
position to fill, because Chancellor Young was such a symbol, if 
you will, of UCLA. He had done so much and served so long, that 
filling his shoes, I think, was very difficult. 

There were a number of candidates that I believed 
were very well qualified, some from within UCLA and some 

I think it was unfortunate in one sense. It was 
difficult to select people from within, because -- in part 
because of his long standing. So, one of the factors that I 
thought was important was trying to attract a person of 
educational stature that appreciated where UCLA had come, but 
saw areas that it could still improve. 

And in part, we needed someone who the community 
in Los Angeles and the state as a whole would say, oh, this is a 
man of stature. If he will now come to this position, that's a 
very positive thing for UCLA. So, that was a factor in it 
among, as I said, a variety of others. 

I also think that the process I was quite 
impressed with. I thought that President Atkinson did an 
extremely good job at allowing various points of view to be 


heard on the process. And after all, his recommendation was . 
particularly critical in the process. The Regents had a 
responsibility, obviously, to approve, but President Atkinson 
was the point person, if you will, in that process. 

And I was very proud of the fact that we were 
able to attract Al Connersill, someone who, I think, does carry 
educational stature, a very excellent background, an ability, I 
think, to deal with the community, an ability to deal with the 
fundraising campaign that UCLA will embark on, which I think is 
an important element . 

So, all in all, I was quite impressed with us. 
That was first committee, other than the Board, that I served 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

I had one. Mr. Preuss, I wanted to ask you about 
the year 2000 problem when we have a moment here to conclude 
this. That's only because the Leg. Counsel just sent me a note 
asking for three-and-a-half million up to accommodate our 

I can't imagine it costs that amount, but you're 
going to be our expert on this. 

Were there others? 

[Thereupon there was discussion 
among the Members off the record.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've suggested to my 
colleagues, surprising myself, frankly, that we ought to vote on 
this, these two confirmations today. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've asked the Sergeant to let 
Senators Brulte and Lewis know. And I suppose they can, if 
they're available, add on or show up when it's appropriate. 

But my colleagues seem to concur. I would just 
say to both of you, in the three-and-a-half years that I've 
watched gubernatorial confirmations, I haven't seen any two 
finer individuals be offered for confirmation. You deserve our 
respect and confirmation. 

Senator Hughes makes that motion with respect to 
Mr. Parsky. 

Do you want to call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Lockyer. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll leave the roll open for 

Thank you. 

MR. PARSKY: Thank you very much. 


CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Motion by Senator Ayala for 
Mr. Preuss. If you'll call the roll. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Lockyer. 


[Thereafter, Senators Brulte 
and Lewis voted Aye, making 
the final vote 5-0 for 
confirmation . ] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Gentlemen, we wish you well 
and feel that the University is in good hands. 

When we cast these votes, it's really a vote that 
runs long past our tenure, because you'll be there in 2008. 
There'll be three different Governors, probably, between now and 
the time you might leave the Board. 

Give us your best, and thank you. 
MR. PARSKY: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon, this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 11:23 A.M.] 







I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

, 1997. 

o^uf day of 

Shorthand 4leport^r 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 332-R when ordering. 

L9 "•' 

JUL 1 7 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1997 
1:53 RM. 






11 ROOM 113 





16 MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1997 

25 Reported by 


27 Evelyn J. Mizak 

Shorthand Reporter 

1:53 P.M. 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




Board of Regents 
University of California 

ROY T. BROPHY, Member 
Board of Regents 
University of California 

Board of Regents 
University of California 

Board of Regents 
University of California 


Jobs for Progress, Inc. 

MARY G. HIGGINS, President 

Clerical Local 

University of California at San Francisco 




KIT COSTELLO, President 
California Nurses Association 

RALPH CARMONA, Former Member 
Board of Regents 
University of California 

Board of Regents 
University of California 

DON NICODEMOS, Legislative Representative 
University Professional and Technical Employees 



Students Association 
University of California 

Peace and Justice Committee 
Berkeley Gray Panthers 


Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste 

Eastern Group 

LULAC Council 2872 

RAFEL SANCHEZ, Legislative Chairman 
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce 


Committee for a Responsible University 

Board of Regents 
University of California 

Board of Regents 
University of California 

Gray Panthers 


Board of Regents 
University of California 


University of California at San Diego 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 


Board of Regents 

University of California 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Regent Election of Officers 4 

Witnesses in Support; 


Board of Regents 

University of California 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re; 

DEL JUNCO ' s Vote on Merger 7 

Vote on Affirmative Action 8 

Statement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

No One is Turned Down for Confirmation 
because of Vote on One Issue 9 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Position on Proposition 209 10 

UC System Is Largest Teaching 

Hospital in World 11 

DEL JUNCO Only Physician on 

Board of Regents 11 


Board of Regents 

University of California 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Automatic Assumption to Chairmanship 

if DEL JUNCO Is not Confirmed 13 



Board of Regents 

University of California 13 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Suggestions for Increasing Pool 

of Eligible Students 14 

Resumption of Testimony 15 


Jobs for Progress , Inc 16 

MARY HIGGINS, President 

Clerical Local, AFSCME 

University of California at San Francisco 18 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Only Issue is Merger of UCSF 

with Stanford 20 

Witnesses in Opposition: 


American Federation of State, County 

and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) 20 

Discussion with Witnesses HIGGINS and PELOTE 

re: Representation of AFSCME on Appointment 20 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Number of Regents Meetings Attended .... 25 

KIT COSTELLO, President 

California Nurses Association 26 

RALPH CARMONA, Former Member 

Board of Regents 

University of California 28 


Board of Regents 

University of California 32 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Political Comments 34 

Resumption of Testimony 35 


Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Possibility of Testifying against 

Other Regent Appointments 36 

Ex-Of f icio Members of Board 36 

Change the Way Regents Are 

Selected 36 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Promotion of Party Politics 39 

Selection Process of Regents 39 

Response by MR. CARMONA 4 

Discussion of Political Discussions 

or Activities 41 

Discussion of Board Attendance 42 

Further Comments by MR. BROPHY 42 

DON NICODEMUS, Legislative Representative 

University Professional and Technical Employees 44 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Change Tenure of Regents 47 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Membership of UPTE 49 

Members Affected by Merger 49 

How UPTE Concluded They Would 

Oppose All three Regent Nominees 50 

Only Issue Raised in Letter Was 
Privatization 50 


JOSEPH JARAMILLO, Education Staff Attorney 

Mexican-American Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund 53 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Position on Race-based Quotas 57 


Allowance for Differing Views 

on Implementation of Affirmative 

Action 57 

Underrepresentation of Hispanics 

in Postal Service Employment 58 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Discouragement of Admitting Ethnic 
Minorities to Professional Schools 60 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Current Asian Enrollment 

at UC 62 


Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Actions Taken by DEL JUNCO 

Which Turned Board into Political 

Playground 65 

Actions as Regent Relative to 

Proposition 187 65 

Criticizing Nominees for Viewpoint 

on Affirmative Action 67 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Lowering Entry Requirements 

for Applicants to UC 68 

What Has Kept Minorities from 

Enrolling at UC 68 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Legislative Latino Caucus 70 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Belief that All Who Supported 

Prop. 187 Are Unqualified to Serve 

as Regents 70 

DR. DEL JUNCO 's Medical Services 

in Latino Community 71 

Position on Taxpayers Paying for 

Medical Care of non-Americans 71 



University of California Students Association 72 


Peace and Justice Committee 

Berkeley Gray Panthers 73 


Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste 75 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Position on Nominees 77 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Failure to Mention Education 78 

Witnesses in Support; 


Eastern Group 78 


League of Latin American Citizens of 

Southern California 81 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Time of Wife ' s Illness 84 

Need to Set Politics Aside 

on Education .84 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Chair of Republican Party 84 

Politics Started by DEL JUNCO 85 

Witnesses in Opposition: 

RAFAEL SANCHEZ, legislative chairman 

California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce 85 


Committee for a Responsible University 86 

Rebuttal by DR. DEL JUNCO 88 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Vote on Raising Student Fees 89 

Vote on Affirmative Action 89 

Retirement Bonuses 90 

Resumption of Rebuttal 92 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Contributions by Republican Party 

to Yes on Prop. 187 93 

Advocacy for Proposition 187 94 

Resumption of Rebuttal 95 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Dates of Wife ' s Illness 97 

Discussion of Board Attendance 97 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Considerations Used for Medical School 
Applicants 98 

Feelings about Drop in Minority 

Applications to UC Professional Schools 100 

Decline in Minority Applications Due to 
Abolishment of Affirmative Action at UC 102 

Suggestions to Reverse Trend 102 

Need for More Minority Physicians 103 

Academic Senate's Authority over 

Educational Policy and Admissions 104 

Position on Constitutional Amendment 

Entitling Top 12.5 Percent of High 

School Students to Admission at UC 105 

Future of Medical and Law Schools 106 

Mentoring 108 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Banning Donor-based 

Admissions at UC 109 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Shared Governance vs. Affirmative 

Action Policy 110 


Difference between Board's Actions on 
Affirmative Action and Donor-based 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

. Vote to Unconstitutionally Deny 
Education to Undocumented Children Ill 

Discussion of Tyler vs. Doe 113 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Effects of Proposition 187 114 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Accomplishments while on Board 115 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Employment from Late ' 50s- ' 60s 117 

Incorporation of Private Practice 119 

Cuban Army of Liberation in 1961 119 

Diplomatic Experience with 

Nicaragua 120 

When Did Issue of Affirmative 

Action First Come Up 121 

Independence in Vote on Affirmative 

Action 123 

Vote on Affirmative Action and Position 

on Race-factored Employment at Postal 

Service 124 

Views on Shared Governance 127 

Most Superior President during Tenure 128 

Things that Could Have Been Done to 

Avoid Controversies in Recent Years 128 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Actions Taken to Encourage Employment 

of Hispanics on Postal Service 129 

History of Blacks in Postal Service 130 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Position on Domestic Partnerships 132 

New Board for Merger 134 

Request that Student Regent Resign 

from Board 136 

Reason Student Regent Was Not on 

Selection Committee 137 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Position on Race-based Outreach 

Programs at UC 138 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Schedule of Hearings 140 


Board of Regents 

University of California 141 


Board of Regents 

University of California * 141 

Witnesses in Support: 



Board of Regents 

University of California (both Candidates) 143 


Board of Regents 

University of California (both Candidates) 145 

Witness in Opposition: 


Berkeley Gray Panthers (all Candidates) 146 

Witnesses in Support: 


Board of Regents 

University of California (both Candidates) 147 

COLEEN SABATINI, Past President 

UCSD Undergraduate Student Body (PREUSS Only) 149 


witness in Opposition; 


Committee for a Responsible University (both) 152 

Termination of Proceedings 153 

Certificate of Reporter 154 

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 --OOO00-- 

3 CHAIRMTU^ LOCKYER: We have confirmation 

4 discussions to begin today for three Regents of the University 

5 system. 

6 I believe Dr. del Junco is first. If you'll come 

7 on up, sir. 

8 We normally permit, it's your option, it looks 

9 like you have a statement to start with. 

10 DR. DEL JUNCO: If you please, Senator. 

11 My name is Tirso del Junco, T-i-r-s-o d-e-1 

12 capital J-u-n-c-o, making it easier. 

13 Senators, it is an honor for me to come before 

14 you today to ask for the privilege of reappointment as Regent of 

15 the University of California. 

16 Although I have been present at several 

17 confirmation hearings, both here in California and in 

18 Washington, D.C., somehow they never get boring to me. Of 

19 course, I wouldn't entirely mind a nice, boring confirmation 

20 hearing once in a while. 

21 Let me first tell you a little bit about myself. 

22 I have been a doctor for the past 47 years. After graduating 

23 from Havana Medical School, I came to America, where I served my 

24 adopted country at Camp Hanford Army Hospital in Washington. 

25 I currently practice in association with several 

26 hospitals, and I am Chairman of the Department of Surgery for 

27 the Santa Marta Hospital in East Los Angeles. 

28 As the UC system continues to expand, and our 

1 various institutions merge, I believe my skills in medicine and 

2 my knowledge of the teaching of medicine will prove extremely 

3 helpful. 

4 I am first a surgeon, but I'm foremost a 

5 volunteer. Although I have been blessed with some degree of 

6 success, I have always tried to give back to the community, to 

7 serve the less fortunate. As a young doctor, I made a conscious 

8 decision to provide medical services for the growing population 

9 of new immigrants and refugees in East Los Angeles. I never 

10 turn away a patient in need of care, regardless of their ability 

11 to pay. 

12 In 1972, I and several minority partners opened a 

13 Los Angeles bank to provide badly needed local capital 

14 development to East Los Angeles. I've been a President of the 

15 Hollywood Park Charity Boards, and for the last eleven years, I 

16 am a member of dozens of charity and health advocacy 

17 organizations. 

18 I have tried to make the children of East Los 

19 Angeles my children. I have sought to do the same for the 

20 University of California. I am proudest of our outreach efforts 

21 that have recruited countless students from diverse backgrounds 

22 and differing socio-economic conditions. 

23 I have recommended the formation of a Regents 

24 committee to determine how the UC system can accomplish this 

25 goal of diversity. Nothing is more important than continuing to 

26 open our doors to all Californians . 

27 But I also want all students to know from a very 

28 young age what it will take to prepare for entry into our top 

institutions. The process will not be easy, but it will be 
fair. I hope to send a strong message to our secondary K-12 
schools that they must prepare these young minds for like 
competition by teaching them to learn, strive, and to excel, no 
matter who they are and where they come from. We must, once 
again, have confidence in the excellence of our K-12 schools. 

With the recent Supreme Court decisions limiting 
racial driven affirmative action of all schools, we all must 
find new ways of increasing our outreach. We can do this 
without discriminating against other applicants on the basis of 
race or eroding the high standards of excellence for which the 
UC system is known. 

We are all of us in this together. I pledge 
today that we will increase diversity through excellence, and 
without denying anyone their fair chance to compete. 

Yes, I do have strong political ideals. I cannot 
help but have strong political ideals because I watched as Cuba, 
my birthplace, was taken over by Fidel Castro, my former school 

But I have never let politicals [sic] intrude 
upon my medical service; that is, to the people of California, 
or my service to the UC regents. In this regard, I believe I 
have set an example for my fellow Regents and for all others in 
public service. I am certain my fellow Regents will tell you 
this today. 

In fact, I'm extremely grateful all of the people 
who have supported me in the past few weeks and offered their 
testimonials. People like Regent Clark, Regent Alice Gonzales, 

Regent Tom Sayles, and Regent Brophy, UCLA Charles Young, and 
Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis, and many others. 

We may not have agreed on every issue, or voted 
the same way every time, but they want to see the confirmation 
process kept clean of political concerns. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry, I missed the last 
word, confirmation -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Process kept clean of political 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Like the appointment process, 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I ask the honorable Senators to 
remember the words of all my supporters. I believe to speak of 
diversity and community while turning your back on one who has 
lived his whole life according to those ideals will risk making 
our young students very cynical about the political process. 

The task before us is to make all the children of 
California our children. In the past twelve years as Regent, I 
have to do -- I have tried to do just that. 

I want to finish the job my fellow Regents have 
asked me to do when they once again voted me Chairman of the 
Board of Regents last Friday unanimously. 

I ask you to allow me a chance. Thank you very 
much. Senators, for allowing me to make a statement. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Dr. del Junco . 
When the officers were elected, did they elect a 
Vice Chair? How does it work? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I left the room at the time of 

the elections, but there was a slate of officers presented to 
the -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Nominating Committee? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: The Nominating Committee. My 
understanding is that everyone voted unanimously. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the slate? Can you 
tell us that? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I think the slate is myself 
Chairman, Montoya Vice Chairman, and then there's a whole slate 
of Chairman of each committee and so on, which I don't have with 
me . 


Let's take testimony. Just stay if you wish, 
either way. If you want to sit in the back, that's fine. 

We'll let whomever is here, starting with the 
support side, please come forward. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon. 

MR. BROPHY: Thank you, Senators. I'm Roy 
Brophy, and I'm a builder and developer here in Sacramento. For 
the sake you don't know me, I'd like to tell you a little bit 
about where my particular opinion comes from before I testify. 

I'm the only one in the history of the state who 
served in all the three segments of higher education. And I 
started on the K-12 Board, and this is my 30th year of 
continuous public service, which brings me to where we are 

I also was the one that opposed and led the 
opposition with an amended resolution on SP 1 and SP 2, to turn 

1 aside the affirmative action proposal by the Governor and by 

2 Regent Connerly. I failed by 10-14 vote, but I'm still here to 

3 testify for Regent Tirso del Junco. 

4 The reason is, at this particular time, in the 

5 face of what's happening, and the thing that concerns me the 

6 most as Chairman of Finance is this proposal for us to merge UC 

7 San Francisco and Stanford. It's a proposal that I was quoted 

8 accurately in the paper by saying that Stanford needs us more 

9 than we need Stanford, and that opinion is shared by Chairman 

10 Tirso del Junco. 

11 We need a medical doctor on this when we get into 

12 these kinds of discussions, I've worked with him in the last 

13 year when we settled between meetings filed lawsuits, and 

14 settled lawsuits working with -- it's one of our jobs, working 

15 with the counsel, the general counsel. And where it concerned 

16 medical malpractice and those kinds of disputes, he was 

17 invaluable. Where it concerned things in business, I'm 

18 reasonably strong in those things. 

19 Incidentally, I'm a constituent of yours, sir. 
2 CHAIRMTU^ LOCKYER: Have you moved? 

21 MR. BROPHY: I want to tell you this. I started 

22 kindergarten in 1925 in Lincoln Grammar School in San Leandro, 

23 so I am a constituent. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Emeritus at least, whatever 

25 they call those. That school closed some decades ago. 

26 [Laughter . ] 

27 MR. BROPHY: They didn't tell me. 

2 8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So far we don't have reunions 

for elementary school. Maybe we ought to. 

MR. BROPHY: A partner of my father is Tommy 
Nick, who was the former mayor. They were partners in real 
estate there, and we lived across from the Star Factory, I think 
it was, some horrible place. 

But anyway, it's incredibly important that 
because Tirso voted this way, that we not turn him down for that 
one vote. It's something I don't agree with. I intend to keep 
fighting against that issue. That particular 'fight's not over 
until the fat man sings, and I'm the fat man. I'm going to keep 
working to set aside this issue, SP 1 and SP 2, and also what I 
can on 209. 

Tirso has been a very, very good -- he's an 
honest person. He's a person you can depend upon. He's a well 
informed person, and I wish that you Senators would consider 
that we do need him. 

I stand for questions. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Chairman. 

I missed part of what you said. He voted against 
what issue? The Stanford — 

MR. BROPHY: He voted affirmative. He voted for 
the SP 1 and SP 2 . I led the opposition against it. I was the 
one that had the amendment to put it off and to activate it 
after we'd spent 16 months in search, and I failed by a vote of 
— I was on the short end of that 10-14. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How did he vote on the UC San 
Francisco-Stanford merger? 

MR. BROPHY: We haven't voted yet. But his 


1 discussion has been the same as mine, it's in opposition to 

2 that. 

3 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

4 MR. BROPHY: Wait a minute, I'm sorry. We did 

5 have a vote. We had a preliminary vote, but that is not -- our 

6 preliminary vote was November. I, too, voted for it in 

7 November, but I asked the caveat, isn't it true that this is not 

8 a final vote; this is simply to start activating the process. 

9 ■ We all voted. I mean, I don't know who voted no 

10 on the thing, but I know he voted and I voted yes. 

11 But the final vote comes in July and in 

12 September. Those are the crucial votes, and I'm voting no on 

13 those two occasions. 

14 SENATOR HUGHES: But the vote that he wasn't with 

15 you on was what, and how did you feel? 

16 MR. BROPHY: I felt he was wrong. 

17 SENATOR HUGHES: The affirmative action? 

18 MR. BROPHY: Yes. I thought that I spent all 

19 this time, this 30 years in serving on public education boards, 

20 and I really felt that -- I served on the community college and 

21 CSU for 11 years, and 12 years on this. I just felt that 

22 there's a better solution to the problem of diversity than 

23 simply trying to pretend like it's a level playing field. It's 

24 not. 

25 Until we reach forward and provide educated and 

26 informed executives that the people of color can look to and 

27 say, it can happen, it's not going to happen. And we're going 

28 to be caught in this flood of uneducated people that we have a 

1 responsibility to educate. 

2 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : Regent Brophy, I think you 

4 made a point. I've heard this point. I've read it in 

5 editorials, I've read in correspondence. So, I think it's very 

6 important to respond to. 

7 You made the point that he shouldn't be turned 

8 down because of this one vote. 

9 MR. BROPHY: Yes, sir. . 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Or piece of his philosophy. 

11 I agree. And no one that I've heard has 

12 indicated that he should be turned down solely for that one 

13 reason. There are a lot of other reasons to do it. You're 

14 going to hear some of those discussed today. 

15 So, anyone else that thinks that that's framing 

16 the issue correctly needs to know, it's not. 

17 Now, I do think personally that it was a mistake 

18 for the University of California to be the first university in 

19 the country to reject use of affirmative action remedies to 

20 overcome discrimination. So, I agree with your comment that 

21 this Board, the Regents, cannot operate this University 

22 unilaterally. 

23 Your Board managed to circumvent the Chancellors. 

24 You managed to circumvent the faculty, and you managed to 

25 circumvent the students, all of whom were unanimously opposed to 

26 the Governor and Dr. del Junco's position on affirmative action. 

27 This is a substantial and significant policy, and 

28 I think maybe as much as the policy, the specific policy itself. 


1 maybe even more significant is a willingness to disregard the 

2 students, the faculty, the Chancellors, the President of the 

3 University system. All of those views were pushed aside for 

4 adoption of a policy that Mr. Del Junco will attempt to, I 

5 guess, defend. I think it's indefensible. 

6 MR. BROPHY: Senator, I was — 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But you're right. It 

8 shouldn't be just based on that one thing. 

9 MR. BROPHY: I stood before the public on the 

10 following morning after that vote, and I was the one who stood 

11 and said I want to speak as member of the public. And I said, 

12 your Board did this, and your Board did that. 

13 But regardless of my strong feelings on that, I 

14 still have strong feelings for Chairman del Junco. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, thank you, and I 

16 compliment you for your continuing service to the University and 

17 the state in numerous ways. 

18 Senator Lewis. 

19 SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Brophy, did you take a 

20 position on Prop. 209? 

21 MR. BROPHY: I sure did. 

22 SENATOR LEWIS: And what was your position? 

23 MR. BROPHY: I voted against it. I debated 

24 against it. 

25 SENATOR LEWIS: So, you were in opposition 

26 against the wishes of the majority of voters in the State of 

27 California? 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yeah, the 21 percent that 



MR. BROPHY: Well, yes, that's true. 

SENATOR LEWIS: We're hearing a lot about 
consensus of ideas. 

MR. BROPHY: I was on the side of the informed 
voters, though, but not necessarily the majority of the voters. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is it true that the UC system is 
the largest teaching hospital system in the world? 

MR. BROPHY: I believe it is, yes, by numbers and 
by dollars, yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: And is Dr. del Junco the only 
physician that's a member of the Board of Regents right now? 

MR. BROPHY: Yes, he is. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other questions? 

Thank you very much. 

MR. BROPHY: Thank you. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: Next, please. 

MS. MONTOYA: Hello, Chairman Lockyer, Senator 
Ayala, mucho gusto. Senator Lewis, Senator Hughes, and I have 
such pride to say Senator Brulte. You knew Jim when he was a 
little boy. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was some time ago. 
[Laughter . ] 

MS. MONTOYA: My name is Thelma Montoya. I am a 
Regent of the University of California. I was here three years 
before you all. 

I'm here to speak for Tirso as a person. I was 


1 born in East Los Angeles on Garrity Avenue. Unfortunately, this 

2 street is known not for educational attainment, but for its 

3 gangs. And I'm very, very grateful to people like Tirso, who 

4 take of their time and their talents and give back to the 

5 community. 

6 I have sat in his waiting offices with the blue 

7 collar members who are there to be helped by him, many of them 

8 at no cost. 

9 I'm here to plead with you to keep him on the 

10 Board and a person, because I think he has unique talents. 

11 Most of the Regents are lawyers, and we need a doctor on the 

12 Board. 

13 He's helping us with the merger issue, and we 

14 have a lot of issues you don't hear about because they're in 

15 closed session, about medical malpractice. And some of us, like 

16 Roy and I, can say, well, you know, how are you fixing this. 

17 But Tirso can get into the nitty-gritty of whether or not the 

18 protocol at the hospital is going to prevent this from happening 

19 again. 

20 So, for these personal reasons, I ask you to keep 

21 him on Board. 

22 And I also have some friends in Washington, D.C. 

23 who call him for help because he serves on the Postal Rate 

24 Commission, and I can attest to you that Tirso gets things done, 

25 and for everyone. He doesn't ask their politics. He just gets 

26 things done when they need it. 

27 I plead with you to keep him on the Board. 

28 Thank you. If you have any questions, I can 


answer them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, I only have one. 
If he's voted down, do you automatically become 

MS. MONTOYA: Absolutely not. I am the Vice 
Chairman, but the way it works is, the Vice Chairman does not 
ascend to Chairman. Meredith Kachigian was the Vice Chairman 
last year, and she has no capacity of that nature. 

An election would have to be held, and the whole 
hierarchy would have to be reconstituted. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They'd have a new election? 

MS. MONTOYA: That's correct. 


MS. MONTOYA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other comment? 

MR. SAYLES : Good afternoon, Senators. My name 
is Tom Sayles. I'm a Senior Vice President with Pacific 
Enterprises in Los T^geles. 

I've had the pleasure of coming before this 
august body on four occasions. I've been confirmed four times 
in less than eight years, starting with the community colleges, 
then the Commissioner of Corporations, Secretary of Business, 
Transportation and Housing, and most recently as a Member of the 
Board of Regents. 

You might ask why am I here? I know Senator 
Lockyer dealt with the issue, but I think it's worth repeating. 

Those of you who know me, know that I am an 
absolute supporter of affirmative action. And I voted with 


1 Regent Brophy; voted against SP 1 and 2, and I voted against 

2 209. I continue to believe that we made a mistake and that 

3 decision was wrong. 

4 But I think we have to think about why people 

5 voted the way they voted. I think those votes were based on our 

6 experience, our personal beliefs, and even our own moral 

7 compasses, and different people can differ on those views 

8 because of their different experiences. 

9 In the case of Regent del Junco, we disagree on 

10 that one issue. And I was not surprised to hear Senator Lockyer 

11 say that it is not just about that issue. 

12 What I want to talk about is that we agree on a 

13 lot more than we disagree. Even in the area of affirmative 

14 action, there are things we agree on. He and I have had long 

15 discussions about the importance of increasing the eligibility 

16 pool of minority students. That's the way to get at the heart 

17 of the program. Regent del Junco supports that. 

18 CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: What is the "that"? 

19 MR. SAYLES: Increasing the pool. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How do you do that? 

21 MR. SAYLES: Well, I think we start with the 

22 elementary schools. And I think there's no one solution to it, 

23 but I think it's at the heart of the problem. You have a pool 

24 of three percent. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, we can miss two 

26 generations, in effect, by starting at elementary schools? 

27 MR. SAYLES: We can argue that we're missing the 

28 two generations now because the eligibility pool is three 


percent today, Senator. 

More importantly, I think -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We would freeze out the three 
percent and start over again at five year olds. That was what 
you're suggesting. 

MR. SAYLES: No, I'm not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand that's Fidel's 

MR. SAYLES: I said that is one thing we could 
do, is to try to expand the pool. There are a multitude of 
other things we think we need to do, too. 


MR. SAYLES: It seems to me that when you come 
before this Board, with all due respect, people come because 
they want to serve. There are three things they ought to be 
judged on in fairness. One is their competency; two is their 
commitment; and third is their integrity. 

There is no doubt in my mind that Regent del 
Junco will pass all of those qualifications with flying colors. 
He is clearly a competent Regent, and as a rookie to that group, 
I've seen how knowledgeable he is. 

He is extremely -- he has a very great 
understanding of the UC system, something that takes a while for 
people to learn. As Regent Montoya indicated, he's particularly 
helpful to those of us on the Board of Regents in the area of 
health care. 

You know, we are facing very, very significant 
issues in that area. 


1 Secondly, his commitment is without question. He 

2 works as hard or harder than most Regents. He spend endless and 

3 countless hours attending to Regents business. 

4 Lastly, in my view, most importantly, he is a man 

5 of unquestionable integrity. We may disagree, and I do disagree 

6 with him, but think he votes his conscience, and he does what he 

7 thinks is right under the circumstances. 

8 So, I come before you asking you to confirm this 

9 honest, hard working man, someone who in many ways embodies the 

10 goodness of this country. And it seems to me that it would be a 

11 tremendous loss to the people of California if he were not 

12 confirmed. 

13 Thank you. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

15 Any questions? Next commentor, please. 

16 MR. RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name 

17 is Salvador Rivera. I reside in Alta Loma, California. 

18 I am here today is to ask for the confirmation of 

19 Dr. del Junco on behalf of several people, including myself, 

20 that could not be here today inasmuch as we are currently right 

21 in the middle of our 68th National Convention in Anaheim, 

22 California. 

23 The good wishes of the Vice President of the Far 

24 West, Mr. Jose Pacheco, and the President of the Richmond 

25 Council, Mr. Richard Arthur, are with me today. They wished for 

26 me to express these good wishes to you, and to ask you that you 

27 consider the record of this individual as a human being and as a 

28 life-long server of the public in the East Los Angeles area, and 



humanity in general. 

Dr. del Junco has devoted his life for working 
for those that are most underprivileged. There are several 
issues that have come across where he has taken some positions 
that possibly some people don't agree with. I happen to agree 
with some of those positions. I happen to agree and believe 
that the individual in character must be the one that prevails. 

We have children in schools that aren't learning 
today. There's no way they're going to make it to the 
University system. The largest teen pregnancy problem in the 
United States are the Hispanic youth in East Los Angeles. These 
people will never make it to the University system. 

People like Dr. del Junco are the only 
opportunity that many of these people are going to have for a 
true service. 

So, yes, there are issues, and they are 
controversial, and they are important. 7\nd I don't deny that. 

But I also ask you not to deny a life of service 
that this man has presented. 

We have looked at -- my boss in LULAC, Mr. Jose 
Pacheco, asked me to look at this. We have endorsements from 
attorneys, private citizens, contractors, businessmen. Board of 
Regents, individual people. We have -- my boss said to me very 
clearly, he said, you must go down there. You must talk to the 
Senate. You must talk to these individuals. Urge them to 
please, please do not deny this individual. Recognize his 
life-long dedication to the service of the community. 

We will be doing a tremendous disservice to the 

1 people of California if you deny this man confirmation. 

2 We ask you with all possible ardor that you do 

3 confirm this individual, Dr. del Junco. 

4 Thank you, sir. I'll answer questions. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: May I inquire as to the 

6 gentleman's name, and what is your position? 

7 MR. RIVERA: Salvador Rivera. 

8 My position in LULAC, or my position as a private 

9 citizen? 

10 SENATOR AYALA: Whom are you representing here 

11 this afternoon? 

12 MR. RIVERA: I am representing myself and Mr. 

13 Jose Pacheco, the Vice President of the Far West of the League 

14 of United Latin American Citizens. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? Thank you, 

17 sir. 

18 Who's next, please? Any other support 

19 commentary? We've got two chairs if someone else wants to come 

20 up. 

21 MS. HIGGINS: My name is Mary Higgins, and I'm 

22 President of the Clerical Local at UC San Francisco. That's the 


24 I want to make it clear, I expected Willie to be 

25 here. Willie's not here, so I think I'm speaking for it with a 

26 qualification that Dr. del Junco vote against the merger. 

27 I was very encouraged. I've been to almost every 

28 Regent meeting for last year. Dr. Del Junco, along with Regent 


Clark and Brophy are pretty much the watch dogs of the money in 
terms of the auditing, and bringing in auditors, that sort of 
thing. So, he does play a real role in that sense. 

And I know that they have had discussions about 
watching the problem of the under-represented in terms of the 
professional schools. There's been a great deal of discussion 
about that. « 

I just want to say that I represent this AFSCME 
local. I'm speaking for the AFSCME local. There's 600 of us 
that will be dramatically affected. We are very upset by the 
whole -- I think you have a letter there of taking of public 
assets of a public institution of this magnitude, and taking it 
out and putting it in the private sector. 

So, if he is opposed to that, I came back 
Thursday somewhat very heartened, and I met with our Executive 
Board. We took this position, and that's why I'm speaking now. 


Willie, did you want to add something? 

SENATOR BRULTE: I have a question. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know that his position 
is publicly pro or con yet. 

MS. HIGGINS: We would support the con -- my 
board took the position that we would support the nomination if 
he was opposed to the merger. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Understands that we cannot 
condition a confirmation on any prospective action. 

MS. HIGGINS: I understand that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That may be your view, and he 


1 can comment as to his views. 

2 SENATOR BRULTE : Is that the only issue you care 

3 about? 

4 MS. HIGGINS: It's the only issue that I'm 

5 qualified to come and make a presentation on. It's the only 

6 issue that I took to my executive board. 

7 The executive board at the local took a position 

8 against 209, but we didn't discuss it relative to this, no. 

9 SENATOR BRULTE: So, your organization would 

10 support or oppose the confirmation of Regents based on this 

11 singular issue? 

12 MS. HIGGINS: Yes, it's very opportunist, that's 

13 for sure. 

14 SENATOR BRULTE: Thank you. 

15 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Mr. Pelote, did you want to 

16 add anything? 

17 MR. PELOTE: Mr. Chairman, Willie Pelote, 

18 representing the American Federation of State, County, and 

19 Municipal Employees. 

20 Based on the letter that we've drafted and sent 

21 to you, we are in opposition to the confirmation of Mr. del 

22 Junco . 

23 And if there are any questions based on our 

24 letters, I'm prepared to answer those questions. 

25 SENATOR HUGHES: Who represents AFSCME? 

26 MS. HIGGINS: Willie does. 

27 SENATOR HUGHES: What is your name? 

28 MS. HIGGINS: My name's Mary Higgins. I'm 


President of the Clerical Local, AFSCME Clerical Local at UC San 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you're Clerical Local — 


SENATOR HUGHES: -- is supportive of him if he 
will do thus and so? 

MS. HIGGINS: Our executive board took that 
position, yes. 

I mean, if it's inappropriate in terms of how 
this is coming out, I apologize. It's just that we've been so 
desperate to stop this thing. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm just trying to understand 
two of you here representing -- 

MR. PELOTE: Senator Hughes — 

SENATOR HUGHES: He speaks for the organization, 
but you speak for a local. 

MR. PELOTE: Senator Hughes, her position is 
consistent with mine, and is in opposition to the nominee for 
his confirmation. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's not what she just said. 

MR. PELOTE: Her local position is consistent 
with my position, as I represent AFSCME. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Would you make your position 

MS. HIGGINS: Yes, I think that you have a letter 
there. You probably have a letter there which is -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have a letter from Mr. Pelote, 
not from you. 


1 Do you have a letter so we can make it part of 

2 the record, too, so that we show one local with a position, and 

3 your political director with another position? 

4 I'm just trying to clear the record. 

5 MS. HIGGINS: It says, "We support the 

■ 6 confirmation of the nomination on the condition that they 

7 verbally go on record opposing the merger of UC San Francisco 

8 and Stanford." 

9 SENATOR HUGHES : You support him on something he 

10 hasn't done yet. 

11 MS. HIGGINS: It's the most important as a 

12 Regent, in my local's estimation. In my local's estimation, 

13 we're just trying to do the best we can to represent our local. 

14 And that's what I did. I didn't know that the 

15 pros and the cons come one or the other. I don't know if I'm 

16 pro or con. If he's against the merger, I'm pro. If he's not, 

17 I'm against . 

18 SENATOR HUGHES: But he doesn't have a chance to 

19 vote at this moment in time, when you are here supporting him if 

20 he does something. 

21 MS. HIGGINS: That's right. 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: If we are all good, I guess we'd 

23 go to Heaven, but, you know, good is in the eyes of the 

24 beholder. 

25 MS. HIGGINS: Well, he's very — I mean, as a 

26 Regent, he's very aggressive as a Regent. But for the 

27 affirmative action, he's one of the better Regents. 

28 I've been to every Regent — no, in terms of the 


1 watch dogging of the auditors, bringing the auditors in, looking 

2 at the auditors, he stopped the San Diego contracting out of the 

3 pediatric beds in the May meeting until there was a guarantee 

4 that general counsel would look at the contract and that 

5 everything was in order. 

6 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 

7 Now, let's hear from the political and 

8 legislative director of AFSCME. 

9 • MR. PELOTE: This local that Mary Higgins would 

10 represent is -- she is a part of Council 57, Joyce Parpiack is 

11 the Executive Director. Joyce Parpiack and I had a 

12 conversation. From that, you have received a letter for the 

13 official position of AFSCME. 

14 The local has -- if they'd like to take a 

15 position that's fine, but its position has got to be consistent 

16 with their council. Their council is in opposition to the 

17 nominee. 

18 SENATOR HUGHES: So, they are in opposition? 

19 MR. PELOTE: That's correct. 

20 SENATOR HUGHES: As a member, she -- 

21 . MR. PELOTE: She has the right. 

22 And I told Ms. Higgins earlier in my office that 

23 she should be consistent with the position that we are taking, 

24 and I think she clearly understands that now. 

25 At this point, I think AFSCME can clearly say 

26 we're in opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Junco. 

27 SENATOR LEWIS: Did I hear you correctly? Were 

28 you speaking on behalf of your local board? 


1 MS. HIGGINS: Yes. 

2 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

3 SENATOR HUGHES: But that it is one local out of 

4 how many in the organization? 

5 MR. PELOTE: We represent around 50,000 members 

6 statewide. Out of the Council 57, you're talking about 45 
1 locals which makes up that council. She is part of that 

8 council. The Council's official position is to be in opposition 

9 to this confirmation of Mr. Junco . 

10 MS. HIGGINS: I also called Willie on Friday, and 

11 he said, this is how you do it. 

12 MR. PELOTE: This is a totally inappropriate 

13 place to discuss it, Mary. We will clearly deal with that at 

14 the appropriate time and the appropriate meeting, 

15 We are now in opposition. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: I don't want to start a fight. 

17 I just want the record to show that one local is opposed. 

18 MS. HIGGINS: 600 members; 600 of the Clericals 

19 at UC San Francisco will be affected by this merger. Many of 

20 them will lose their retirement. They're going to lose their -- 

21 SENATOR HUGHES: We're not talking about the 

22 merger. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The issue is not before us. 

24 The only thing I can suggest is, and it's not a 

25 recommendation, or a policy preference, or anything else, purely 

26 a prediction. The merger's going to occur. So, you ought to 

27 prepare for that, in my view. And that's regardless of what we 

28 do with respect to this particular confirmation. 



MR. PELOTE: TVnd may I apologize for the 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I'm just trying get the 
record straight. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We get it. There's a local 
that has different views than the regional and statewide 
organization, and that's not unusual. The log cabin Republicans 
in Long Beach have a different view about certain issues than do 
the Republican organizations otherwise. 

Did you want to continue? 

SENATOR BRULTE: I don't want to interrupt if he 
hasn't finished. I have a question, though, when you're 

MR. PELOTE: Go right ahead, Mr. Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: How many Regents meetings have 
you been to? 

MR. PELOTE: I don't attend those, Mr. Brulte. I 
leave that up to the executive director, Joyce Parpiack, who 
represents us in everything at those meetings. 


MS. HIGGINS: I've probably been 14 now. I'm 
sort of a Regent groupie almost. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You may have attended more 
than Mr. Del Junco does. 

MS. HIGGINS: No, that's unfair. No, I haven't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, it's not. He catches 
about 50 percent. 


1 MS. HIGGINS: He's been at every one I've been 

2 at. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The last year he's been very 

4 good, pending confirmation. But if you'll look at the record 

5 going back to 1985/ it's not so good. We'll talk about that 

6 when we get to it. 

1 You don't have to attend his attendance record, 

8 ma'am. 

9 Any other questions from Members? 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. PELOTE: Thank you. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other commentary? Anyone 

13 else? 

14 MS. COSTELLO: My name is Kit Costello. I am 

15 President of the California Nurses Association. On behalf of 

16 our members, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

17 today. 

18 We represent 25,000 registered nurses in the 

19 state, and over 3, 000 of these are registered nurses employed at 

20 UC medical centers and campus health centers. 

21 Regrettably, the CNA must oppose the confirmation 

22 of Dr. Tirso del Junco. And the reason being is specifically, I 

23 realize that the UCSF-Stanford merger is not the defining issue 

24 in this confirmation, but we believe that it's pivotal. 

25 For the record. Dr. del Junco did vote 

26 affirmatively in favor of the merger in November of this year. 

27 And I think it's not a minor difference of opinion among the 

28 Regents, because actually what we're talking about is really the 


transfer of public assets that value over half a billion dollars 
to a nonprofit private corporation.* 

These discussions have occurred in closed 
sessions, away from public scrutiny. The Regents have refused 
to meet and confer with the union representatives of the 
affected employees over the decision and effects of such a 
merger, and we've raised concerns about effects on patients and 
the communities, as well as the jobs and the pensions of the 
nurses that we represent. 

As nurses, our concerns are grave. We believe 
that this is possibly an interim step to turn over public assets 
to a for-profit hospital chain. I don't think this is outside 
the realm of possibility, as Columbia HCA is engaged discussions 
to buy or lease the UC Irvine Medical Center. This really does 
loom as a highly probable scenario given the health care market 
and the loss of control of the Regents to the new governing 
board of the merged entities. 

The claims of urgency over the financial health 
of UCSF are debatable, and in fact there are many 
irregularities. Mr. Helman, who was the Regents' consultant and 
issued the dire warning has now, curiously, appeared as a member 
of the new board. 

Other financial experts have appeared before the 
Assembly and Senate to state the opinion that UCSF Medical 
Center is financially healthy as confirmed by substantial cash 
reserves and accounts receiveable, as well as a low debt load. 

Many of the stakeholders are justifiably 
concerned about the impact of the merger. Just three weeks ago. 


1 the Faculty Senate of UCSF voted by a 2-1 margin in favor of 

2 further inquiry and investigation of the effects of the merger 

3 impact on research, education and patient care. 

4 And many public officials, including Senators, 

5 Assemblymen, and the County Board of Supervisors are supporting 

6 bills to mandate open meetings of the new entity, the 

7 controlling board. Legislative experts like former Assemblyman 

8 Phil Isenberg have questioned the authority of the Regents to 

9 give away public assets in this manner. 

10 I do believe that it is a major issue in the 

11 confirmation of Dr. del Junco. And I would like to state that 

12 the issue of his expertise as medical doctor, I think, is 

13 important, but this is why the UC Board of Regents has the 

14 capability and the authority to retain consultants to assist 

15 them in making those decisions. I don't think that should be a 

16 sole issue in his confirmation. 

17 So, I thank you for the opportunity to issue our 

18 objection before you today, and I urge you to use your 

19 obligation to not confirm this candidate. 

20 Thank you. 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

22 Other opposition would be fine at this point. 

23 MR. CARMONA: Mr. Chairman Lockyer, Members of 

24 the Rules Committee, my name is Ralph Carmona, and to my left is 

25 Mr. Richard Russell. 

26 We come to you today as former alumni members of 

27 the UC Board of Regents. We come to urge your support for 

28 Regents Parsky and Preuss, who will come shortly thereafter, but 


with some concerns about Dr. del Junco with respect to his role 
involving the University's public mission as a land grant 
institution and its shared governing process. 

We come as two who have received highest degrees 
of academic distinction, a Ph.D. and a J.D. We come as two who 
presently serve as members on UC alumni boards at UC Santa 
Barbara in my case, and UC Berkeley in the case of Mr. Russell. 

Finally, we come as two who would not be here 
today were it not for affirmative action. 

Let me begin my statement by telling you that I 
believe Dr. del Junco to be an honorable man of good character. 
He is without any question one who has responded in a particular 
sense to the medical needs of Latinos in the east side of Los 

This is why, and Tirso, you may not remember 
thiS/ I was instrumental as a board member for the Pasadena 
Junior Chamber of Commerce organization in having you honored at 
its annual dinner. 

So, I come to this Committee with some real mixed 
feelings, but I come knowing that this is a very critical 
decision for the Senate. UCLA Chancellor Charles Young, in 
fact, who strongly disagrees with Dr. del Junco on a number of 
major issues, believes that the Senate would be wise to confirm 
him in order to avoid any further politicization of the 

For me, such a position reflects a University 
view that would deny this body its Constitutional obligation on 
such a crucial matter. After all, we're talking about a lengthy 


1 12-year Regent term for the most part, people who are appointed 

2 to ensure an independence of judgment, and to best prepare them 

3 to deal with the complexities crucial to the University's public 

4 mission and its shared governing process. 

5 I have received three degrees in a discipline 

6 involving the study of politics, and I am the former chief 
1 lobbyist for Bank of America, an institution I was proud to 

8 affiliate myself with for almost a half a generation. 

9 So, it is with that background that, when I 

10 became Regent, I was quite surprised at Dr. del Junco's rather 

11 cursory approach to controversial issues facing nine UC 

12 campuses. Issues like affirmative action, selection of the 

13 University's President, the UC San Francisco and Stanford 

14 hospital merger, and student fees. 

15 Obviously, the most controversial of these issues 

16 is that of affirmative action. I didn't go -- I didn't know 

17 Senator Brulte as a youngster, but I went to high school with 

18 Senator Polanco and attended Garfield High School on the east 

19 side of Los TVngeles, where I was an auto mechanics major, had a 

20 3.0 GPA, low test scores, insufficient college requirements, in 

21 a school with a 62 percent dropout rate. Obviously, affirmative 

22 action made it possible for me attend the University of Southern 

23 California. 

24 With those three degrees behind me, I suppose it 

25 would be easy for me to attribute my academic success to some 

26 kind of color-blind individualism, but I believe that my 

27 accomplishments speak to a much broader social question. In 

28 other words, I believe that what's happening presently at the 


University begs for a very serious dialogue on this most painful 
subject, because the harsh reality is that any future outreach 
effort to Ralph Carmona or to Richard RUssell in the future will 
now be a suspected form of preference or a quota. 

Moreover, the medical needs in the East Los 
Angeles area where Dr. del Junco serves, will face decreased 
access to UC's medical schools. A classic example is here in 
Sacramento, UC Davis Medical School. The most recent first year 
enrollments show there's only one Latino student, not a single 
black student in that first year class. 

This school was the famous defendant in the 
affirmative action case, Supreme Court case, the Bakke case back 
in '73. 

What we are witnessing is a policy seed change 
affecting UC's integration efforts, a decision that has divided 
the Regents themselves, created turmoil on the campuses, and has 
results in a Chancellor leadership change on five of the nine UC 
campuses, including the departures of UCLA's Young and UC 
Berkeley's Chang-Lin Tien. 

All of this is a consequence of a policy 
supported by Dr. del Junco with only three weeks notice and no 
formal Board review. The failure to approach this critical 
policy of integration in a serious deliberative fashion without, 
as the Chairman pointed out, without the input of the 
Chancellors, the faculty, and the students is what, in large 
part, contributed to their opposition to that policy, and is 
what now eats at the heart of UC's governing process and its 
public purpose. 


1 Dr. del Junco has served 12 years as a Regent and 

2 is now its Chairman of the Board. Aside from offering the kind 

3 of generic or allegorical statements he has made about public 

4 school, or form, or individual merit, I believe Dr. del Junco at 

5 minimum owes this Committee some explanation as to how the 

6 University will avoid a resegregation without using the 

7 complicated factors of race, ethnicity, or gender that are used 

8 by other California public and private institutions. 

9 Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that 

10 there is no explanation. That is why, among other reasons, this 

11 Committee should deny confirmation for Dr. del Junco. Thank 

12 you. 

13 Now, let me turn it to Mr. Russell. 

14 MR. RUSSELL: Hi, my name is Richard Russell, and 

15 to correct a statement made by Mr. Carmona, I am still a Regent 

16 until June 30th. I serve as an alumni regent. 

17 I'm not a very political person. 

18 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: You have one more week? 

19 MR. RUSSELL: One more week. 

20 I understand, and I've in fact read the 

21 Constitution, that politics is to play no role with the 

22 Regents. 

23 I happen to very much like Dr. del Junco. I will 

24 say affirmatively that in terms of the times that he's acted as 

25 Chair, actually in open session, I know of no circumstances in 

26 which politics or in some way his politics has made a 

27 difference. 

28 However, the reason I'm here today is because I 


have an ultimate concern, and that is, I have grave doubts as to 
whether or not, if given a choice between what is in the best 
interests of the University of California and people of the 
State of California, and his party affiliation, I'm not sure 
what decision Dr. del Junco would make. 

In fact, specifically, I think there's a greater 
crisis which is ongoing at the University of the California, and 
that is that there's a lack of communication, there's a lack of 
trust as between the Board of Regents and the UC 
administration. And that's something that concerns me greatly. 

There's also a hostile environment as between the 
individual Regents. Obviously, a lot of it has to do with what 
took place at the Board of Regents two years ago. 

I want to give you a couple examples of the 
hostile environment, and I think Dr. del Junco ' s ultimate 
responsibility for that environment. 

Again, my position is only for two years. 
However, I've heard while sitting at that table such statements 
as, "What do you expect from a Democrat?" Or, "It's all 
politics; what difference does it make?" 

But there have been -- and Dr. del Junco has not 
made those statements. 

However, there have been at least two occasions 
in which there were events in the form of dinners paid for by 
the people of the State of California in which only Regents and 
UC administrators were present, in which in my opinion and that 
of many others. Dr. del Junco has really created an environment 
of almost a political party dinner. 


1 And that offends me greatly. It would offend me 

2 just as greatly if it were a Democratic Party dinner as 

3 Republican, because I don't believe there's a place for it. But 

4 it has a real chilling effect, and it's made many people, both 

5 in the administration and those who, perhaps, don't have the 

6 same party affiliation as Dr. del Junco, very uncomfortable. 

7 ■ I realize that Dr. del Junco feels very strongly 

8 about his party affiliation. That's fine. 

9 I don't believe the Regents of the -- the Board 

10 of Regents of the University of California is the place for 

11 that. I believe that he can do all of that here in Sacramento 

12 or outside of when we meet. 

13 But I'm concerned that that has taken place and 

14 will continue to take place, and will do so to the damage of the 

15 University. 

16 SENATOR BRULTE : Let me see if I've got this 

17 correct. I want to see if I can quote you correctly. 

18 Comments like, "it's all politics," or, "what do 

19 you expect from a Democrat, " were made by other Regents, not by 

20 del Junco? 

21 MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. 

22 SENATOR BRULTE: Yet it's his fault that these 

23 comments were made? 

24 MR. RUSSELL: No, sir. My point was that in 

25 terms of maintaining the environment there, to have a dinner of 

26 Regents and UC administration, and talk about the party, and 

27 what a wonderful job someone did on behalf of the party in front 

28 of everyone, it's not a political gathering. Those sorts of 


things, I believe, maintain an environment. 

I have not had much of a relationship with Dr. 
del Junco until last week, when I called him to let him know 
that I was contemplating coming up here. And that's really the 
first conversation we had. 

He has treated me on the most part fairly, but 
because I might have different beliefs or a different party 
affiliation, it's been very difficult. I've been an outsider, 
and that I object to. I don't think there's a place at the 
Board of Regents for that. 

It doesn't matter which party. There is no place 
for that . 

My concern is, as we go forward, I can think of 
circumstances in which it i may be in his party's political best 
interest to act in a certain manner. For example, in our 
outreach efforts. I'm on the Outreach Task Force of the 
University, and there's clearly a struggle right now as to the 
direction we take. Some of that, unfortunately, at least some 
people are taking a political position so as to justify what's 
happened in the past with regard to SP 1. There is no place for 
that at the University, and that's my concern. 

Again, I'm sure, you know, politics comes out of 
his pores, but not while acting as a Regent, in his capacity as 
a Regent. 

So, I would frankly, although I don't see a 
reason for me to come back, I would, I think, take a principle 
position if he were a Democrat and acting in that manner, I 
would be before you today. 


1 SENATOR BRULTE: How can you not see a reason to 

2 come back? I would assume that if the Regents who made the 

3 comments like, "what can you expect from a Democrat," or, "it's 

4 all politics," ever come before this Committee for confirmation, 

5 I would expect you to be here arguing against their 

6 confirmation. 

7 MR. RUSSELL: The problem is that I'm at the end 

8 of a term. Eight years hence, if one of those Regents is here, 

9 I would have to make a decision as to whether or not to get on a 

10 plane to fly here for that one comment. I'm not sure about 

11 that. 

12 I do know that there's a real crisis as between 

13 the Board of Regents and the administration, and I know because 

14 that's something I've experienced in the last year while he's 

15 served as Chairman of the Board. 

16 SENATOR BRULTE: The Speaker of the Assembly is 

17 the leader of his party in the State Assembly, serves as a 

18 member of the Regents ex-officio. 

19 MR. RUSSELL: I'm aware of that. 

20 SENATOR BRULTE: Do you think that's a good thing 

21 or a bad thing? 

22 MR. RUSSELL: There are a lot of things I'd like 

23 to change. 

24 SENATOR BRULTE: Would you change that? 

25 MR. RUSSELL: I would like to change the way that 

26 Regents are selected. 

27 SENATOR BRULTE: How would you like to change it? 

28 MR. RUSSELL: I've never met I think it's Speaker 


1 Bustamante, nor did I meet Speaker Pringle or Speaker Allen -- 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a long list. 

3 MR. RUSSELL: — in my two years. 

4 I would be very happy for us as a state to take a 

5 second look at that. But, you know, right now, I don't care who 

6 it is, but when you're there doing the business of the 

7 University of California, that should be the only thing that's 

8 important and the only focus of one's attention. 

9 Again, I will say in his defense, I cannot think 

10 of instance while there chairing a committee, but much of the 

11 business goes on, at the Regents at least, behind closed doors. 

12 It goes on in the back room. I'm not -- I haven't been very 

13 involved in those discussions, but there are circumstances I 

14 know where there's been a lot of polarization, and it hasn't 

15 gotten much better. 

16 And ultimately, I think, the Chair -- you know 

17 we are supposed to be a nonpolitical group. I think ultimately 

18 the Chair has to take some responsibility at the point that he's 

19 added to that problem. That's why I'm here today. 

20 SENATOR BRULTE : What changes in the appointment 

21 process would you make? If you could wave a magic wand and not 

22 have to get a bill through Senator Lockyer, or Speaker 

23 Bustamante, or Pete Wilson, how should Regents be picked? 

24 MR. RUSSELL: Senator, frankly, I don't know 

25 because I can't conceive presently of something, a process 

26 that's different that would take out -- take out the process of 

27 politics. 

28 I do know that because in some regards I'm so 


1 apolitical, that although I love the University, I think I'm 

2 competent and I have a lot of commitment and integrity, there's 

3 virtually zero chance of my ever becoming a Regent, or people 

4 like me. And the reason is specifically because I'm not 

5 involved politically. On that basis alone, I'm out of luck. 

6 And there are a lot of people like me who feel 

7 very strongly on behalf of the University. 

8 So, I don't know. Obviously there is a need for 

9 checks and balances, and maybe it means -- I think it's a shame, 

10 whether they're all Democrats or all Republicans, that all the 

11 Regents are of one political party. 

12 So, I don't have an answer for you. If I did, I 

13 would certainly recommend it. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: You indicated that the Board has 

15 been politicized. 

16 When the Governor is a Democrat, he will appoint 

17 members to the Regents who, I'm sure, are liberal in their 

18 philosophy. And when the Republican Governor appoints, it'll be 

19 conservative. 

20 I agree that politics, the education of our 

21 students is nonpartisan. I don't know what Mr. Del Junco has 

22 said that you're not quoting, but he is Chairman. He allows 

23 that kind of conversation to take place. 

24 In this building, sure, you know, Republicans and 

25 Democrats, but when you're trying to educate our students, 

26 political persuasion should not enter, whether Republicans or 

27 Democrats. 

28 And what I hear is that the gentleman in question 


has been very political, and promoting the philosophy of the 
Republican Party. Am I right or wrong in that? 

MR. RUSSELL: You're right to the extent, again, 
behind closed doors, I'm not someone -- 

SENATOR AYALA: Wait a minute. Closed doors. 
Doesn't the Brown Act -- well, I've got a bill that'll open that 
door for everyone, Regents or not. I think it's public 
business. It isn't private business. They should be open to 
the public, except when it comes to legal matters, or something, 
they're contracting out, buying a portion of real estate. But 
every business conducted by the Regents is public. They're 
public figures. They're not private enterprise. 

What business do they have conducting business 
behind doors in the first place? 

MR. RUSSELL: I'm not suggesting that it's 
necessarily a situation in which the Regents are conducting 
business. It may be a dinner for the Board of Regents and the 
administrators . 

But there again, you know, it's those who 
don't -- aren't part of the party, and there are a lot of 
people in that room not part of the party, so we feel like we 
outsiders. I feel that way because I'm not concerned about 
anyone's politics. I'm only there to do the business of the 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't expect governors to 
appoint members to any commission who don't agree with his 
philosophy or her philosophy? 

MR. RUSSELL: That's why I think it should be 


1 changed. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: I agree with you 100 percent. 

3 MR. CARMONA: Senator, the reason that the 

4 12-year term is in place, and the reason Dr. del Junco is before 

5 you today, is in large part because that 12-year term and that 

6 confirmation process is there in part to ensure that there be 
1 that degree of independence, notwithstanding the partisan 

8 differences. 

9 We've seen differences in terms of court 

10 decisions that are made, Supreme Court on down, even though 

11 there may be a partisan factor in the selection of that 

12 individual. 

13 And you're right. It's no different with regards 

14 to the Board of Regents, but to large extent -- 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Someone suggests that we should 

16 not turn him down on the basis of philosophy. 

17 The Governor vetoes our bills on the basis of 

18 philosophy. So, why can't we veto some of his appointments by 

19 reason of philosophy? 

20 MR. RUSSELL: You obviously have the power to do 

21 so . 

22 My point is that one should leave one's politics 

23 at the door when you're doing the business of the Board of 

24 Regents. I don't believe that's occurred. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: I want to be fair. 

2 6 I haven't heard you say one word about this 

27 gentleman that you feel is political in nature. You said 

28 someone said, and this guy said that. 


What has he done that you feel is politically 

MR. CARMONA: I can give you just one quick 
example, is the situation with one of the student Regents. 
Students Regents had gone -- it was at a Board meeting. It was 
limited to the discussion of personnel matters. 

After he had disclosed that they were in 
violation of the Brown Act, Dr. del Junco as the Chair removed 
that student Regent from being on the committee that's in place 
to select that student Regent's successor to the process. 

So, he wasn't at all worried when it came to — 
he may have been complacent generally, as Mr. Russell has made 
reference to in committee meetings, but when it came down to 
reacting to a student Regent that was out of place, he took 
quick action and excluded him from that student Regent Selection 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we're going to hear 
from Mr. Bravin shortly. 

SENATOR AYALA: How long has he been Chairman of 
the Board. 

MR. CARMONA: One year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, he was just elected. 

MR. CTIRMONA: No, he was elected about a year 


from his -- 

SENATOR AYALA: He just elected. I'm reading 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were re-elected, but you 
served, this is a year you've been there. 


1 SENATOR AYALA: Reading from his attendance 

2 record, Mr. Del Junco attended 34 out of 60 meetings, 57 

3 percent, during the period from '90-91 and '95-96. During that 

4 period he had the lowest attendance of any Regents. 

5 That means all of a sudden, he's attending 

6 because he is Chairman; is that correct? He made eight out of 

7 eight in '97. So, he's there all the time, but when he was not 

8 the Chairman, he was very poor in attending the meetings. 

9 MR. CT^RMONA: When I was alumni Regent, I — 

10 there was a couple times made an effort to meet with Dr. del 

11 Junco just to introduce myself, become acquainted with him, 

12 because I knew he is a person who serves the east side of Los 

13 Angeles, and that's where I'm born and raised. But there were a 

14 number of times when he was absent and that was delayed. 

15 MR. RUSSELL: I should also point out that I did 

16 send a letter in support of Gerald Parsky because I believe 

17 that, in observing him for the past year, I don't see any sense 

18 that his political affiliations have had any to do with his 

19 deliberations and what he said. 

20 SENATOR BRULTE : When whoever made the comment 

21 about, "it's all politics," or "what do you expect from a 

22 Democrat," was made, did Mr. Parsky pipe up and comment that 

23 that kind of discussion was inappropriate? 

24 MR. RUSSELL: I think he was on the other side of 

25 the room. 

2 6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 

27 Thank you. 

28 Mr. Brophy, you've been appointed to all these 


segments of higher ed. Which governors appointed you? 

MR. BROPHY: I was appointed -- I served on the 
San Juan Board/ and then Hutchison, who the Appointment 
Secretary for Governor Reagan -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which governor? 

MR. BROPHY: Reagan. And then Reagan appointed 
me. And then he reappointed me to the CSU Board for eight 
years, and then Deukmejian put me back on to CSU. They were 
having a problem with a Chancellor down there. I went back 
there as Chairman again, and then he appointed me to the UC 
Regents . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So you did miss the Jerry 
Brown phase, I guess? 

MR. BROPHY: No, sir. I served with Jerry Brown. 
I sat by him for four years. We had a wonderful time together. 


MR. BROPHY: May I just make one comment to 
clarify one thing that is being misinterpreted? 

My comments about the SP 1 and SP 2 were nothing 
against the Governor. The Governor is still my friend. He was 
my friend for 20 years, and he still is. I don't -- we simply 
had a difference of opinion. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't think anyone thought 
it was personal . 

MR. BROPHY: I want everybody as a friend 


MR. NICODEMUS: Mr. Chairman, my name is Don 
Nicodemus. I am Chair of the Coalition of UC Unions. I'm also 


1 legislative representative for UPTE, which is part of CWA. UPTE 

2 represents professional and technical employees, University 

3 Professional and Technical Employees. 

4 I actually work at the University. I'm a 

5 computer programmer. I'm here as a volunteer. I do all my work 

6 to the union as a volunteer. 

7 T^d I'm deeply concerned about the Board of 

8 Regents, and frankly their unaccountability, their lack of 

9 ability to come to grips with many of the problems that have 

10 come up and we've seen in the press over the last five to ten 

11 years. 

12 But I did want to say something about the 

13 question of politics that was raised. The Constitution 

14 specifically says it should be nonpartisan and free from 

15 partisan political influence. 

16 Most of the decisions that the Board of Regents 

17 make are political decisions, but the thing that the 

18 Constitution hopes to avoid is one party in power being able to 

19 use the University for its own purposes, to give out 

20 construction contracts to people that are going to contribute to 

21 campaigns, to issue support for an initiative that's coming up 

22 on the ballot, that sort of thing. 

23 But I'm here not to oppose these Regents for one 

24 issue. I'm here to oppose all three Regents -- del Junco, 

25 Preuss, and Parsky -- not just because they voted against 

26 continuing the UC San Francisco Hospital situation as it 

27 currently is, but because of the general process — moreover 

28 because of the general process that they followed. 


As part of this privatization process, Tirso del 
Junco, Peter Preuss, and Gerald Parsky have violated 
Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. 

They, in giving away and creating this new form 
of governance for part of the University, they violated Article 
Nine, Section Nine of the Constitution, which, among other 
things, seeks to have UC administered solely as a public trust. 

T^d they've also violated Article Sixteen, 
Section Six of the California Constitution, which prohibits 
gifts or transfer of public funds. 

What happened was, back in July of last year* 
they decided to go ahead with spending all the money within the 
University to set up this institution, without even having a 
full understanding of how the members of this Board of Directors 
would be selected. So, there were closed meetings then, talking 
about the structure of the corporation. 

In November, they voted to go ahead and give 
eight-and-a-quarter million dollars to this institution, this 
private company that they've set up, and in spite of the fact 
that the day before, they heard in closed meeting that, in fact, 
UCSF was very profitable, and that they had been hiding money in 
the hospital reserves so that that money couldn't be transferred 
to other parts of the University. 

The Legislature has set limits on profit of the 
hospitals that they can keep within the hospitals. And that 
money would have been transferred. 

So, administrators tried to keep this money 
hidden. So, this November secret meeting, the closed meeting. 


1 and I'll quote President Atkinson when he heard about this, he 

2 said, "I was stunned by the sort of things I heard. I thought 

3 it was very important for the Regents closed session with the 

4 Chancellors present to hear this full discussion." 

5 This was an audit of their auditors that had come 

6 back, Deloit and louche had come back and said, "Look, you're 

7 hiding money in the hospitals. The hospitals are much more 

8 profitable than it seems." 

9 Regent Preuss, in response, doesn't just pull the 

10 rug from under this on this question of the hospitals. 

11 So, it's clear that they've been patching some of 

12 these things in closed meetings. 

13 They've also, in addition to these things 

14 specifically on the hospitals, there's this long -- I mean, you 

15 may have noticed in the press over the last few years, there are 

16 a few stories that have to do with excess executive 

17 compensation, excessive high student fees, guilty verdicts 

18 against the University for discrimination in order of millions 

19 of dollar verdicts. And this has gone on for the last five 

20 years. 

21 I mean, we did a compilation of this last year, 

22 and we came up with 115 scandals that have happened only since 

23 1992. And specifically in '94-95, when Regent Preuss was also 

24 an alumni Regent, he served a year then, and now he's been 

25 appointed for a full term, there were about 12 or 13 of these 

26 different scandals, ranging from toxic waste in Davis that had 

27 gotten out into the ground water and the neighbors, to fraud 

28 probes at UCSF, the response in July to earlier scandals, to a 


media consultant pay $60,000 to a media consultant to get out 
good stories on UC . 

They participated in the Committee on Jobs, which 
sought to elect public officials in San Francisco. 

So, when were these things criticized in the 
Board of Regents meetings. When were these problems of 
mismanagement dealt with? And they haven't been. 

So, it's not just that it's -- there is -- that 
these particular Regents are not doing their job, although 
that's true. But it's also the larger question that we heard 
earlier, that when one party is in, whether it's Democrat or 
Republican, when one party is in the Governor's Office for so 
long, you get a stacked Board of Regents. 

So, we need a new system of selecting the Regents 
that's based on local community participation in those 
appointments. So, we should have, in addition to, perhaps, the 
Governor appointing them, we should have local communities 
appointing Regent nominees as well. That should solve the 
partisan problem. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can I just respond to the last 


SENATOR AYALA: Wouldn't one way to correct that 
would be that the Regents serve as long as that Governor is in 
office. When that Governor goes out, that Regent goes with the 
Governor, so that no one remains in office 12 years, 10 years, 
after the Governor's gone. The same philosophy of that Governor 
would go out with him. 


1 MR. NICODEMUS: As long as you have some sort of 

2 balancing mechanic where one party isn't able to control the 

3 Board of Regents. If you have some kind of balance, either 

4 geographically, because of the political distribution in the 

5 state, or -- and how they're selected, you could have them 

6 elected by -- in proportional elections, for example, and that 

7 would ensure some nonpartisanship, or balanced partisanship. 

8 SENATOR AYALA: Yes, but the term of office is 12 

9 years? 

10 MR. NICODEMUS: Yes, for the 18 appointed 

11 Regents. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: The ones we're appointing today, 

13 they'll serve 10 years after the Governor's gone? 

14 MR. NICODEMUS: Yes, that's right. They do serve 

15 a number of years after they're gone. 

16 SENATOR LEWIS: Too bad those pesky voters keep 

17 electing Republican governors. 

18 [Laughter.] 

19 MR. NICODEMUS: Well, that's their choice. 

20 Would you like to have a Democrat dominated Board 

21 of Regents. 

22 SENATOR LEWIS: No, I most certainly would not. 

23 I'm wondering if you'd be here testifying if the Board of 

24 Regents were constituted in that fashion, testifying on this 

25 same point if the Regent Boards was constituted in that fashion? 

26 MR. NICODEMUS: I think that they have to be held 

27 accountable, whether they're Democrats or Republicans. I 

28 personally would not be involved in such a large a movement to 


make a change in the Board of Regents, but I would be up here 
saying, they need to be accountable, yes. 

SENATOR BRULTE: The University Professional and 
Technical Employees, how many members do you have? 

MR. NICODEMUS: There are about -- we represent 
totally people who have voted for representation. It numbers at 
about 6/000. Actual paid dues members, we have about -- a 
little over a thousand members. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You'll have to forgive me my 
ignorance of the issue of consolidating medical centers in San 
Francisco. I don't have a horse in that fight. 

How many of your members are or would be affected 

by that? 

MR. NICODEMUS: About 4 00 members. 
SENATOR BRULTE: It's big deal to your 


MR. NICODEMUS: I should say there's probably 
about 400 people who voted for representation. 

Yeah, It is important for our organization, but 
we also think that there are larger issues beyond sort of our 
immediate invested interests. 

We are not hiding the fact that yes, we're trying 
to defend the people, our co-employees, that work there. 

SENATOR BRULTE: How did your organization 
conclude that they should oppose these three appointments? Was 
there a meeting where you sat down and -- 

MR. NICODEMUS: I didn't quite hear the 


1 SENATOR BRULTE: You oppose the appointment of 

2 the three Regents? 

3 MR. NICODEMUS: Right. 

4 SENATOR BRULTE: How did you conclude that? 

5 MR. NICODEMUS: We are a democratic organization. 

6 We have an elected leadership as part of a statewide executive 
1 board. And the executive board decided to oppose these people. 

8 SENATOR BRULTE: Based on the entire litany of 

9 issues, you came before us? 

10 MR. NICODEMUS: That's right. That's right. It's 

11 not just because -- I don't think that they should be opposed 

12 just because they voted in favor of the hospital privatization, 

13 although I'm opposed to that, their vote on that. 

14 You know, I could live with that, but the whole 

15 process of how the University is being run is a problem. And we 

16 have to send a message to these people that we can't have these 

17 private, closed meetings. We've got to have the stuff done in 

18 open public meetings. 

19 This is how you do it. This is your way of 

20 holding them accountable. If you don't them accountable, 

21 they're not going to hold the executives accountable, and you'll 

22 continue to have these kinds of problems. 

23 SENATOR BRULTE: If your organization feels so 

24 strongly about that, why was the only issue that you raised in 

25 your official correspondence with this Committee the issue of 

26 privatization? 

27 MR. NICODEMUS: The issue of privatization has to 

28 do with how they've sought to privatize in the closed meetings, 


1 the gift of public funds. 

2 SENATOR BRULTE : That's not what your letter 

3 says. Your letter says you oppose privatization, not the 

4 process by which the Board -- I can read your letter if you'd 

5 like. 

6 Even in your letter you say, "We need Regents 

7 Bustamante and Davis to come to the Board meetings and oppose 

8 the privatizations." 

9 • MR. NICODEMUS: That's right, we do need them to 

10 do that. 

11 And we hope that these Regents do vote to stop 

12 these leases, where they're leasing this property out well at 

13 below market value only for the maintenance of the building. 

14 Why not lease these out at market value? 

15 So, yes, the privatization is a major issue. And 

16 certainly they can make it right. They can make, you know, some 

17 of these problems with the closed meetings and all these 

18 decisions right by not -- deciding not to go ahead with 

19 them. 

20 SENATOR LEWIS: Next witness, please. 

21 MR. SFERIOS: Yes, hello. My name is Emanuel 

22 Sferios. I am an employee of the Associated Students of the 

23 University of the California at Berkeley. I've also 

24 participated in a number of student groups, working on the 

25 campaign to preserve affirmative action and against Prop. 209. 

26 I'm here -- I'd like to comment on the hypocrisy 

27 of Dr. del Junco, where he seeks praise for his charitable work 

28 in East L.A, while at the same time supporting policies which 


1 produce an under class of individuals, families, who need 

2 charity to survive. 

3 He also apologizes for his strong political 

4 views, which he credits to Fidel Castro. Perhaps this is 

5 because Cuba, not withstanding their failings, have achieved 

6 what affirmative action in this country is attempting to 

7 achieve, which is the highest rate of secondary education for 

8 its citizens of any country in the world. 

9 I would also like to speak on the issue of the 

10 process of selecting Regents. You know, when I was in high 

11 school, I was taught about democracy and how our legislatures 

12 are voted for. But no where do I remember any teachers telling 

13 me about the Regents and how they're selected. Perhaps that's 

14 because they're not selected democratically. 

15 It doesn't seem difficult for me -- a number of 

16 you have mentioned, gee, how do we do it? What solutions do you 

17 have? 

18 One solution, and I'm not sure if it's been 

19 brought before you, but it's being discussed around UC Berkeley, 

20 is the concept of campus councils, where a body of 

21 individuals -- faculty, staff, community residents -- would 

22 nominate Regents. I think the modest initial proposal is half 

23 the Regents, so the other half would continue to be nominated by 

24 the Governor. This would at least halfway bring the Board of 

25 Regents to a place of accountability and representation where we 

26 can be proud of how they're selected. 

27 I'm just here speaking for myself. 

28 SENATOR LEWIS: Any questions? 


Thank you very much. 

Next witness. 

MR. JARAMILLO: Members of the Rules Committee, 
my name is Joseph Jaramillo. I'm an education staff attorney 
with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 

MALDEF is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan 
organization dedicated to protecting and promoting civil rights 
of Latinos the in the United States. 

Members of the Committee, those civil rights are 
in grave danger from many fronts, one of which is access to 
higher education in this state. The UC Regents sit as one of 
the most powerful unelected bodies in this state. They are 
constitutionally required to serve the public trust in a 
nonpartisan manner, and they have a deciding influence on access 
to the University of California. 

Mr. Del Junco, despite his claims to care for the 
best interests of Latinos, in particular, and the state as a 
whole, has been a driving force in closing the doors of access 
to Latinos and other under-represented minorities. 

MALDEF opposes the reconfirmation of Mr. del 
Junco on three grounds, all of which have implications for the 
educational opportunities of Latinos. 

First and foremost, Mr. Del Junco was a driving 
force behind the UC Regents' resolution, SP 1, which eliminated 
affirmative action admissions. We are now beginning to see the 
devastating impact of SP 1 . 

Despite Mr. del Junco ' s claim that affirmative 


action denies opportunity to Latinos, we now see that it is 
precisely the opposite. The elimination of affirmative action 
that denies those opportunities. 

For example/ Latino admissions dropped at every 
University of California law school that implemented SP 1 
recently in this past admissions cycle. At Boalt Hall, Latino 
admittees were cut in one-half, from 78 in pre-SP 1 1996, to 
merely 39 this year. Similarly, at UCLA, Latino admittees 
dropped 32 percent, and at UC Davis, they dropped 28 percent, 
more than any other ethnic group. 

These numbers are not just due to the high number 
of minority applicants discouraged from applying to UC, they are 
due mainly to an admissions policy that disproportionately 
excludes Latinos and African-Americans. For example, at Boalt 
Hall School of Law in UC Berkeley, nearly one in four white 
applicants were admitted in this past admissions cycle, while 
only one in ten Latinos, and only one in twenty African-American 
applicants were given offers of admission. 

Likewise, at UC Davis School of Law, nearly one 
in two white applicants were admitted, while just more than one 
in four African-Americans were admitted, and only one in five 
Latinos were admitted. 

These are just snapshots of what will eventually 
occur system-wide in University as this policy, which prohibits 
even the consideration of one's ability to overcome adversities 
based on the basis of raise and ethnicity continues to be 

This is nothing less than the resegregation of 


our public University system. 

Second, MALDEF opposes the reconfirmation of 
Mr. del Junco because despite his position as a medial doctor in 
East Los AngeleS/ he has shown indifference to the lack of 
access to health care for Latino communities. As a medical 
doctor, Mr. Del Junco should know that Latino medical students 
are more likely to end up practicing medicine in severely 
underserved Latino communities than any other ethnic group. 

Mr. del Junco, more than any other member of the 
Board of Regents, should also know that Latino and 
African-American communities are four times more likely than 
other communities to have a shortage of doctors. 

Yet, Dr. del Junco has been instrumental in 
pushing a policy that will result in fewer Latino doctors, in 
fewer Latino neighborhoods. Indeed, when given the opportunity 
to testify before a Senate hearing on precisely this issue, Mr. 
del Junco failed to attend, but instead FAXed a last-minute 
letter calling for outreach, mentoring, and better K-12 

These are all necessary measures, but honorable 
Members, Latino communities cannot wait a generation after these 
outreach and mentoring efforts coming to fruition to receive 
adequate access to medical care. 

We are losing qualified minority medical 
applicants, medical school applicants, to private and out of 
state schools because of this discriminatory admissions 

Finally, we oppose the reconfirmation of Mr. Del 


1 Junco because he engages in uninformed decision making. For 

2 example, when asked recently by the Sacramento Bee for his 

3 reaction to the dramatic drop in minority admissions to UC law 

4 schools/ he stated that he was, quote, "not concerned" unquote, 

5 because these figures reflected pre-SP 1 admissions. Mr. del 

6 Junco did not even realize that SP 1 had taken effect this 

7 January 1st for professional and graduate programs, and that 

8 this dramatic drop was directly related and caused by the 

9 elimination of affirmative action. 

10 By way of another example, Mr. del Junco 

11 continues to play under the notion that affirmative action 

12 results in discrimination against Latinos. As Chairman of the 

13 Postal Service Board of Governors, he has pitted Latinos against 

14 African-Americans, charging that only African-Americans benefit 

15 from the Postal Service's affirmative action policies. 

16 Then he has applied this logic to the UC 

17 admissions. Yet, as we can see from the first post-SP 1 

18 admissions results, everybody benefits from affirmative action, 

19 and everyone will hurt from its removal. 

20 Latinos, and African-Americans, and women are 

21 harmed because they are now provided only the most limited 

22 access. Other ethnic groups will hurt because they will attend 

23 almost homogenous classrooms without the insight offered from 

24 members of diverse communities. This is not educationally sound 

25 preparation for working in a multi-racial competitive world 
2 6 economy. 

27 Fortunately, the regressive policies founded upon 

.28 misinformation and ill-conceived divide and conquer politics may 


not last. We are hopeful that the United States Department of 
Education, and the United States Department of Labor will heed 
MALDEF's and other civil rights groups complaints, and 
ultimately find that the post-affirmative action admission 
policies of the University are in violation of federal civil 
rights laws. 

Chairman Lockyer, who's not present, and 
honorable Members of the Senate Rules Committee, I urge you to 
oppose the reconfirmation of Tirso del Junco. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any questions from Members of the 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do you believe race based quotas 
is the only acceptable form of affirmative action, or if you 
oppose race based quotas, do you oppose affirmative action? 

MR. JARAMILLO: The University of California has 
not had race based quotas since 1978. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You can answer a question. I 
just asked you question. 

MR. JAR7\MILL0: We oppose — MALDEF supports any 
policy -- MALDEF supports affirmative action. Affirmative 
action is a policy which allows admission officials to take into 
consideration the race, ethnicity, and adversity faced on those 
characteristics of applicants. That's what we support. 

Quotas are illegal, so we can't support quotas 
and we don ' t . 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do you believe people can have 
differing views on how to implement affirmative action? Does 


1 MALDEF believe that? 

2 MR. JARAMILLO: Well, MALDEF unequivocally 

3 supports affirmative action, so that an organization or person 

4 that opposes affirmative action will ultimately be on the other 

5 side of any policy debate. 

6 SENATOR BRULTE : Is that based on affirmative 

7 action, or based on MALDEF' s opinion of what affirmative action 

8 is? 

9 ■ MR. JARAMILLO: Well, MALDEF has a Board of 

10 Directors that decides key policy positions. And our Board of 

11 Directors decided to support unequivocally affirmative action, 

12 and that's our charge. 

13 That's what most Latinos in California and the 

14 United States support, and I personally, that's what I 

15 support. 

16 SENATOR BRULTE: Let me move a little bit to the 

17 Postal Service issue you raised. 

IB My understanding is, Dr. del Junco has been 

19 critical in his role as a member of the Postal Commission 

20 because he believes that Hispanics are under-represented in the 

21 Los Angeles postal area relative to the number of Hispanics 

22 within the population. And he has been advocating that more 

23 recruitment is done, more outreach is done, so more Hispanics 

24 can be put in the senior ranks of the Postal Service. 

25 Is that your understanding? 

26 MR. JAR7\MILL0: I'm actually not familiar with 

27 that issue. 

28 My point in bringing up the Postal Service was 


that he should not impute his views about one situation and 
impose them on an entirely different situation, such as the 
University of California, where Latinos and African-Americans 
can both benefit from affirmative action. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I was just curious. I mean, I 
can have the court reporter read back your comments, but you 
said that he was pitting blacks against Hispanics, and my 
understanding is, he has simply suggested that in an area like 
Los Angeles, that has a huge Hispanic population there, the 
under-representation of Hispanics within the senior ranks of the 
Postal Service in Los Angeles should be corrected. 

And you think that pits Hispanics against 

MR. JARAMILLO: Well, I don't -- I can't comment 
on the specific situation in Los Angeles. I can just comment 
upon generally what he has stated about the Postal Service and 
how he has applied that to the context of the University of 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do you oppose what he's doing at 
the Postal Service? 

MR. JARAMILLO: I have no position on it. If we 
explored that issue, then maybe we could take a position. 

If it's supporting affirmative action, then I'm 
sure generally our board supports affirmative action. 

My point is that affirmative action does not have 
to mean pitting Latinos against African-Americans, whites 
against blacks, blacks against browns. Affirmative action can 
benefit everybody. 


1 SENATOR BRULTE: I assume since you raised it as 

2 issue, you had spent a little time looking into it. My mistake. 

3 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Ayala. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: I don't know the exact words you 

5 used, but you infer that Dr. del Junco was involved in pitting 

6 the advancement of medical students, Hispanic, Latino, whatever 

7 you want to call them, to medical school? He was involved in 

8 some kind of a practice to discourage or not allow the ethnic 

9 minorities to go to medical school? 

10 I don't know how you worded that. Is that 

11 something you said in your letter there? 

12 MR. JARAMILLO: What I said was the passage of 

13 SP 1 eliminating affirmative action -- 

14 SENATOR AYALA: You said he was involved in some 

15 movement to impede if minority students going to medical school. 

16 And I want to know -- 

17 MR. JAJIAMILLO: That's the passage of resolution 

18 SP 1. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: How did he do that? 

20 MR. JARAMILLO: After resolution SP 1 passed, 

21 minority applications to the University of California dropped by 

22 over 25 percent. The passage of SP 1 sent a message. that we 

23 will not embrace diversity at the University of California. 

24 This was a knowing and willing move by the UC 

25 Regents, because there were studies presented to the Board of 

26 Regents before the vote SP 1, showing that the number of 

27 minority applicants to all University programs would 

28 dramatically drop once this policy was implemented. 


SENATOR AYALA: That is, he supported that 
effort; therefore, he's not responsible individually, but as 
supporting a movement that the people of California supported, 
and that was to pass that proposition. 

MR. JARAMILLO: The people of California passed 
Proposition 209 a year after the Regents resolution SP 1 was 
passed by the Board of Regents. 

To the extent that Mr. Del Junco is a medical 
doctor, and that he is knowledgeable about issues of access to 
medical care, which I think he should be as a medical doctor, I 
would hold him responsible for not realizing the impact that SP 
1 could have on the access to medical care of minority 
communities . 

SENATOR AYALA: That is the only example you can 
give me as to how he was involved in throwing hurdles in front 
of Hispanic or other minority medical students? 

MR. JT^AMILLO: Well, there was also a hearing 
held two months ago, held by the State Senate two months ago on 
this very issue. 

Mr. Del Junco not only did not attend after being 
invited, but he merely FAXed a two-page terse letter, stating 
that we need to conduct more outreach, we need to do more 
mentoring, we need to prepare kids in K-12. 

That's, you know, the link between that and 
access to medical education, in my mind, while it exists, is not 
going to do anything for the immediate need of communities in 
California that are under-served, Latinos and African-American 


1 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

2 SENATOR LEWIS: I heard you quoted some 

3 statistics dealing with whites, blacks and Hispanics, but I 

4 didn't hear you quote anything relative to Asians. What's 

5 happening with Asian enrollment since the beginning of the year? 

6 MR. JARAMILLO: It's my understanding that 

7 Asian-American rates of admission at UC law schools stayed 

8 relatively the same, went up slightly in some of the law 

9 schools, except at UC Davis, where they dropped. To what exact 

10 percentage, I'm not aware of. 

11 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

12 Senator Polanco's been sitting there patiently. 

13 I understand you have to Chair B&P, Senator, so we're going to 

14 take you next. 

15 SENATOR POLANCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

16 Members. 

17 I'm here today to voice my opposition and to ask 

18 that we not confirm. I've circulated a letter to Members of the 

19 Committee outlining the basis for a brief comment. 

20 Just let me say that I do not oppose the 

21 appointment on any single act or on any single vote, for the 

22 record. 

23 Rather, my opposition is based on what I believe 

24 is a track record not only of poor attendance when students of 

25 higher education needed it most, but also supporting policies 

26 that harm both the current and the potential students of the 

27 University. 

28 You've heard testimony with regard to the 


decreases in the medical schools. You can go beyond the 
medical schools. At UCLA Law School, at Boalt Law School, 
there's tremendous decrease in the areas of admissions. 

Now, whether the argument is valid as to who to 
blame, I believe that comment has been made that this particular 
nominee has become much too political and has politicized the 
process, as well as the operation that was established by the 
voters, quite frankly. Members, if you recall, independent of 
the Legislature, because it believed that this was an 
institution that needed thoughtful and balanced perspective on 
issues critical to the future of higher education. 

The issue of SP 1 obviously was a breaking point 
for many. If you go beyond the issue of higher education, the 
policies and the positions that this person has taken have been, 
quite frankly, being a physician, shocking to me, given the fact 
that on the issue of 187, doctors throughout California took the 
position that people should be given medical care. T^d for a 
physician and for a member in this very public forum, it was 
very disturbing to begin to see and witness a continuing 

I do not support quotas, nor do I support the 
issues of preferences. I do, however, believe that we who are 
given the opportunity to serve in a public capacity, be it 
elected or appointed, have the responsibility to attend, have a 
responsibility to, especially in the institution of higher 
learning, we can play all the politics that we play because that 
is the forum. We are elected, and we come to the debate with 
different issues and beliefs, and different constituencies. 


1 When you get to the notion of the institution of 

2 higher learning, it becomes -- it should not become a political 

3 playground. I believe that institution is headed in that 

4 direction. 

5 If there is a comment or a question with regards 

6 to what we should do, I'm a firm believer that the time has come 

7 that this institution should be an institution that probably 

8 should not continue to politicize itself. If so, then it ought 

9 to become an elected board. If not, and it wishes to really 

10 debate and keep the interest of this institution at its highest 

11 level, then it should shy away from the politicization that it 

12 has engaged itself in. 

13 Finally, I believe that the members of the Board 

14 of Regents should not only live up to that responsibility to 

15 attend those particular meetings, but they should also have a 

16 vision of inclusion and a vision of equality. 

17 I had the opportunity to briefly read some of the 

18 comments that were made with regard to the issues between 

19 African-American Postal workers and Latinos. And I find them 

20 very disturbing in light of the fact that, if anything, I 

21 believe they're carelessly stated. And I believe that they 

22 should be considered when we talk about the issues of equal 

23 opportunity and equal access to higher education, or higher 

24 employment opportunities within the institution. 

25 Having said that. Members, I'm here again just to 

26 urge you not to confirm or recommend to the Senate a 

27 confirmation vote in the affirmative. 

28 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator, you used the expression. 


political playground. 

What action or actions has Dr. del Junco taken in 
your estimation to turn the Board of Regents into a political 

SENATOR POLANCO: Well, I think the actions over 
last 12 years, if you look at one very, very controversial 
political issue. Prop. 187. Here is the doctor who is a Regent, 
here is a person, who by oath, should be adhering to the law 
that they are sworn up to hold, and that is to provide — 

SENATOR LEWIS: As a member of the Board of 
Regents, what did he do within the confines of his appointment 
relative to 187? 

SENATOR POLANCO: His position was an affirmative 
position in support of 187. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How did he demonstrate that? 

SENATOR POLANCO: I think you could best ask him. 
It was reported very clearly in newspaper articles that 
covered -- 

SENATOR LEWIS: Are you talking about the actions 
that he took as a private individual or as a member of the Board 
of Regents? 

SENATOR POLANCO: I think that it's very 
difficult to distinguish the two, in light of the political 
nature of the Regents. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I think it's very easy. 

Does a citizen of California or of the United 
States give up their . .rst Amendment rights by being a member of 
the Board of Regents? 


1 SENATOR POLANCO: No, they do not. No, they do 

2 not. 

3 However, the responsibility ultimately of that 

4 Board of Regents member is to the students, is to the 

5 institution of higher learning. 

6 SENATOR LEWIS: You mentioned Proposition 187. 

7 As a member of the Board of Regents, what did Dr. del Junco do 

8 that, in your words, turned the Regents into a political 

9 playground with regard to Prop. 187? 

10 SENATOR POLANCO: I used the term political 

11 playground in the sense of the SP 1, which I think became part 

12 of a political agenda. I don't think anyone will deny it. It 

13 was part and parcel to divide communities. It was part and 

14 parcel to fan a continuation. There'll be a third wave. It 

15 came with 187/ it came with the affirmative action, and the next 

16 one's going to be the issue of choice. 

17 So, my points -- 

18 SENATOR LEWIS: You don't think affirmative 

19 action is a political issue? 

20 SENATOR POLANCO: TVbsolutely, it can be a very 

21 political issue if, m fact, it's presented in the manner in 

22 which it is was expressed by claiming that these were quotas. 

23 We have no quotas. We have no quotas. 

24 SENATOR LEWIS: From your vantage point, do those 

25 like Dr. del Junco, who voted to abolish affirmative action, 

26 they're playing politics? But those who vote to sustain 

27 affirmative action are doing something else? 

.2 8 SENATOR POLTVNCO: I think the Regents played into 


a political agenda of the person who appointed them to this 
body, period. It's no secret. 

And I think for us to try to sugar coat it any 
which way is a fallacy. 

SENATOR LEWIS: If he'd agreed with your point of 
view — 

SENATOR POLANCO: What do you believe my point of 
view is, Senator? 

SENATOR LEWIS: I think you wanted to retain 
affirmative action in the University system. 

SENATOR POLANCO: I think affirmative action is 
very healthy. I think affirmative action in the institution of 
higher education is critical. 

In order for students to become even considered 
to be into this very -- let me finish. I didn't interrupt 
you -- to be considered. Senator, as a potential admittee, the 
minimum requirements of grade point average have to be in place. 

All affirmative action does, it says we will take 
into account other considerations so that we don't have a 
segregated institution of higher learning. 

SENATOR LEWIS: My point is that I think you and 
I, or anyone in this room can argue the benefits or detriments 
with affirmative action, but the question is whether or not 
Dr. del Junco should be criticized for, quote, "politics" 
because of one particular viewpoint that he has on affirmative 

SENATOR POLANCO: No, I think he should be 
criticized for poor attendance. I think he should be criticized 


for his votes when it came to whether we were going to increase 
student fees. I think he should be criticized in addition to 
his position on SP 1, I believe it is, as well as a position 
that he's taken on the other issues, including 187. 

The only thing that I have, Members, here as you 
have is the ability to cast a vote up or down. And we do that 
based on a variety, not a single act, but a variety. 

And I believe that the evidence is very clear 
that there is a pattern on this particular nominee, and that is 
what I am here to voice my opposition and urge you to deny the 
recommendation of do pass. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just have one question for 
Senator Polanco. 

Do you believe that we should lower the entrance 
requirements for applicants? 


SENATOR AYALA: Lower the bar, so to speak, for 
anyone? I don't care where their grandparents came from. 


And I believe that the students today who have 
gone through the UC system have met those minimum requirements. 
They have not lowered the standard. 

You have to have that GPA, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: What has kept them, quote, "the 
ethnic minorities, " from enrolling at the University of 

SENATOR POLANCO: I think a lot has to do with 


recruitment, financial considerations. I think if we were 
modify the existing policy, which I believe Mr. Connerly has 
indicated a willingness to look at, look at the issue of social 
economics so that if you are economically disadvantaged, 
irrespective of the color of the skin, you ought to be -- and 
you meet that minimum requirement, you ought to be given an 
affirmative act. That's what affirmative action is. 

SENATOR AYALA: You touched a very nerve with me 
when you mentioned about the students' inability to pay their 
way. I know that Mr. Del Junco voted to raise the fees through 
the years, which makes it impossible for some people to 

If they were to provide some kind of a job or 
something to work it out, but don't deny anyone on the strength 
of their economic status. That probably would be an equalizer 
for everyone that applied for the job. 

But the Regents, and I don't care what Regents 
come before us, I can't support him if they voted to raise fees 
for students. They have to from time to time, but then they 
should provide a way for the students to pay it back, loans or 
whatever, and not deny anyone, anyone, if they qualify entry to 
the University of California system. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much, Senator 
Polanco, for being here. 

As you gave your testimony, did you speak merely 
as a State Senator representing your Senatorial district, or do 


1 you also chair another group? And tell us, is it the Latino 

2 Caucus, Legislative Latino Caucus. 


4 SENATOR HUGHES: How many Members are in this 

5 Latino Caucus, and how many of them share the views that you 

6 projected here? 

7 SENATOR P0L7VNC0: I Chair the Latino Caucus. 

8 There are 17 Members total, four Senators and 13 Members on the 

9 Assembly side. 

10 With regard to whether or not we took an official 

11 position on this, we did not. I had not placed this issue on 

12 the agenda. 

13 However, I think had I, I can very comfortably 

14 state to you that I believe that the appointment and the outcome 

15 would be not to support this particular nominee. 

16 Again, for the record, I had not placed it on the 

17 agenda. Members have been lobbied of our Caucus with regards to 

18 this. I have not had one Member come to me to express support 

19 of this candidacy. 

20 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Brulte. 

21 SENATOR BRULTE: Do you believe that anybody who 

22 supported 187 isn't qualified to serve on the Regents? 

24 SENATOR BRULTE: Just physicians? 

25 SENATOR POLANCO: No. I think physicians, 

26 Senator, have an oath that they take which is different. An 

27 oath that says they shall always treat the individual 

28 irrespective of ability to pay or irrespective of status. 


When a physician takes a position publicly and 
states it publicly which is contrary to that oath, I have a real 
problem with that, and I think a lot of people do. It's a 
position that goes contrary to their oath of professionalism, as 
well as contrary to the position the Medical Association took. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Are you aware of Dr. del Junco ' s 
reputation in the medical community of providing services to 
people who are indigent and unable to pay, and his record of 
waiving fees? Would you surprised to hear that he probably does 
that more than most? 

SENATOR POLANCO: No, I would not. Senator, and 
it disheartened me, because I do know the record. I know that 
Santa Marta Hospital, a few blocks from where I grew up, a 
facility that is there much because of the to do. 

But what disappoints me most is when you have 
that same hospital corresponding to me, asking for additional 
financial assistance in order to support the undocumented who 
may be serviced there on emergency basis, and then to have a 
physician, who has this history there, it sends me a message of 
some hypocrisy. There is no consistency. 

So, I am very, very familiar with it. Senator. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Is it fair to say that your 
position is that the people of California, the taxpayers of 
California, ought to provide nonemergency medical care to 
non-California citizens, non-American citizens, who are here 
illegally in this country? 

SENATOR POLANCO: I believe that issues like 
health care should be given to individuals, irrespective of the 


1 Status. That is my position, and I have not changed from it. 

2 SENATOR LEWIS: Have fun chairing B&P. 

3 SENATOR POLANCO: Thank you. 

4 SENATOR LEWIS: It won't be quite as exciting, I 

5 don't think. 

6 Thank you for being so patient. 

7 MS. DAVIS: My name Deborah Davis, and I'm the 

8 Chair of the University of California Students Association. And 

9 that is an association that is a coalition of all of the student 

10 associations in the UC system. And by virtue, we represent all 

11 160,000 students, undergrad, grad, and professional. 

12 And I am here to speak in opposition to the 

13 confirmation of the appointment of Regent del Junco. That's 

14 based largely on the fact that over the last ten or so years, we 

15 keep records of the student friendliness of our Regents. 

16 Unfortunately, Regent del Junco ' s record is fairly poor. 

17 He has been very hard to get an appointment . 

18 with. He has been -- when we do have appointments with him, he 

19 has not necessarily been open to listening and talking to us 

20 about particular issues and hearing our particular opinions. 

21 And as students, we think it's fundamental that 

22 the Regents be open to speaking to all of the constituents of 

23 the University, and especially those that are directly involved 

24 in the day-to-day operations, which students are. We're there 

25 everyday. We know what it's like to be on a campus and to exist 

26 in a space where students are working 30-40 hours a week so that 

27 they can pay their fees, and who are struggling to survive. 

28 So, we think it's extremely important that all of 


the Regents be open to talking to us and to hearing our issues. 
And we're very disappointed that that has not been the case over 
the history of Regent del Junco's sitting on the Board. 

I did also want to make a couple comments about 
the make-up of the Board, and the politicization, et cetera. 
And, you know, I think the street goes both ways. I think that, 
unfortunately, there's always politics on the Board, regardless 
of who the dominating party is. 

As a student, I find that really frustrating, 
because the bottom line is, we just want a good education, and 
education should not be determined by the politics of the 
situation. It should be determined by good policy. 

So, I would urge you to consider the 
qualifications of each of the three candidates you're 
considering, their knowledge of educational issues, and those 
issues go beyond affirmative action to the quality of education, 
to fee structure, et cetera, and that you base your decision on 
the qualifications. 

And unfortunately, I don't believe that Regent 
del Junco is the best qualified person to sit on the Board of 
Regents . 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right, thank you. 


MS. BORGERSEN: My name is Rose Borgersen. I'm 
Chair of the Peace and Justice Committee of the Berkeley Gray 
Panthers . 

We are up here quite often, speaking for human 
rights, and social and economic justice. We'll be up here again 


1 July 2nd, to urge you all to support the 13 health bills that 

2 you're now considering. And we come from time to time. We have 

3 supported the California Nurses Association in their effort to 

4 maintain good health care, in spite of many positions taken by 

5 the University in their connections with hospitals and seeking 

6 privatization in many areas. 

7 The power of the Regents and the University is 

8 awesome to me, because without going through the litany of all 

9 the specifics that were named to you about what goes on in 

10 closed session, and the position on affirmative action, and 

11 other areas that have been touched on in detail here, it seems 

12 to me that by virtue of the enormous power that the University 

13 has because of its holdings, its property ownership, any time 

14 there is -- any time there is a confrontation of any kind on 

15 social matters, the University comes down on the side of 

16 business. The bottom line is all-important. 

17 And my concern is, who takes care of the 

18 interests of the people? 

19 We are here to speak for the people. We're an 

20 advocacy group on social and economic reform. 

21 And I think that, perhaps, what I'm suggesting, 

22 this is not a personal attack on any of the candidates, but 

23 Dr. del Junco has been in power as Chair of the Regents for 12 

24 years. And all I have seen in the past 10 years that I've been 

25 living in this area is that they do not speak for people. 

26 And that's what I would ask you to consider when 

27 you take up the matter of confirmation of all three candidates, 

28 as a matter of fact. 


Having been in that position for 12 years, I 
think Dr. del Junco must take some responsibility for the 
adverse positions he has taken with respect to the unions in the 
employ of the University, and the community at large. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: I think in all fairness, I 
should correct an error. 

I don't think that Dr. del Junco has been 
Chairman of the Board for 12 years. He's only been the Chairman 
for 2 years. 


Then I'm misinformed. 

You are misinformed. 

As I say, this is not a personal 

attack, but he has been on the Regents for 12 years. 

Yes, but not as Chair. 
Not as chair, okay. 
Thank you. 




Next witness. 

MS. BERNARDI : My name is Jean Bernardi, and I'm 
representing the Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste. 

We're very concerned about a dangerous situation 
at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which, as you may know, is 
just above the UC campus in Berkeley. 

It seems that either the Regents are unaware of 
the situation there, or that perhaps they're negligent. 

And the problem is that the lab, which happens to 
be owned by the Department of Energy but run by the University 
of California, has applied for a permit to increase the storage 


1 of radioactive hazardous waste in Strawberry Canyon. 

2 Strawberry Canyon is a -- well, those who go 

3 jogging there think of it as a wonderful, pristine wildland 

4 area, but it is a critical fire zone. It's right there next to 

5 the Hayward Fault. And in fact, the replacement hazardous waste 

6 handling facility that has recently been built, is built 

1 directly on top of Wildcat Fault. They say it's an inactive 

8 fault; however, that's what they said about the Northridge Fault 

9 also, and we know what happened there. 

10 The Regents delegated the authority to the UC 

11 President, I understand. And then he, in turn, delegated the 

12 authority to the director of the lab to make the decision as to 

13 whether there should be a full environmental review, a full 

14 environmental report on the situation at the Lawrence Berkeley 

15 Laboratory. 

16 I think right there, that's very poor oversight, 

17 to ask the director of his own agency to make these decisions. 

18 And of course, he came out with a negative declaration, saying 

19 there are no significant environmental impacts. 

20 As I've already pointed out, it's a dangerous 

21 situation. There certainly are significant environmental 

22 impacts to consider. 

23 And so, there is a lawsuit in the offing now to 

24 ask for a full EIR. And it would be great if the Regents would 

25 just make that decision on their own, and we'd save all this 

26 time in court. 

27 Another significant environmental situation which 

28 they overlooked in making their decision not to do a full 


environmental review was that there is a national tritium 
labeling facility there in the canyon. This facility 
continuously radioactive tritiated water vapor into the 
atmosphere, and only 200 yards from the Lawrence Hall of 
Science, where 100,000 children visit per year. 

As Dr. Gauther might say, this is premeditated 
murder. That's what he said. 

So, what I am saying is that the Regents need to 
take more responsibility for this situation. I believe that if 
we had councils, campus councils to elect Regents, that they 
would be aware of this situation at the University of California 
in Berkeley, and this kind of a situation would not 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. And you are 
testifying in opposition to Dr. del Junco? 

MS. BERNARD: : I am, but I can't say that that's 
the position of the group, but personally I would be against 
that, yes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there any member of the Board 
of Regents that would not oppose? 

MS. BERNARDI : I am not taking a position on 
that. I'm taking a position for the council, the campus council 
who would elect a representative from each campus so that 
these -- 

SENATOR LEWIS: You have a concern about 
Strawberry Canyon, and you're here testifying about that because 
of the lack of involvement or knowledge on the part of the 
Regents. And you're opposing Dr. del Junco. 


1 Would you oppose the other Regents who are up 

2 today as well? 

3 MS. BERNARDI : You mean Preuss and Parsky, yes. 

4 SENATOR LEWIS: All right, thank you. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: You didn't mention one issue 

6 dealing with education. 

7 Is that important to you at all? You dealt with 

8 environmental concerns, which obviously are important, but 

9 they're there for one purpose, to educate students. 

10 You have no concerns about that? 

11 MS. BERNARDI: Oh, I definitely do. I'm also 

12 concerned about the health and safety of the students. They 

13 live in dormitories that are right next to the Lawrence Berkeley 

14 Laboratory. And this radiation is going into the atmosphere 

15 right where these young people live. 

16 SENATOR AYALA: I have no more questions. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did we conclude both of you? 

18 .MR. SANCHEZ: No, I think I'm next. 

19 Good afternoon. Senators. My name is Jonathan 

20 Sanchez. I am a publisher of a community -- chain of community 

21 newspapers; ten newspapers to be exact. With circulation in Los 

22 Angeles County, some of these newspapers actually circulate in 

23 the area where -- both areas where Dr. del Junco practices. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where are you located? 

25 MR. SANCHEZ: I'm in Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

26 County. To be exact, I am in the City of Commerce, where 

27 there's a lot of money. 

28 I am here to support Dr. del Junco. I am here as 



an individual but also as a publisher who is in constant 
communication with the readers, 400,000 a week to be exact. 

I think what happens here is that we've gotten 
away from the original intent of being here. What is the reason 
that we're here for? We are here to get this gentleman 
confirmed and reappointed. I think that should be based on 
his -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I beg your pardon? We're here 
for what? To get him reappointed? That's not what we're here 

MR. SANCHEZ: No, to confirm. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: To advise and consent. 

MR. SANCHEZ: Right, right. And everybody who is 
here and has testified, I'm going to get to the point. I don't 
want to talk about party lines or anything like. 

The thing we've gotten away -- we've concentrated 
a lot on affirmative action, and affirmative action is something 
that cannot continue as it is. It should be changed. 

But to point to one individual, one Regent, one 
member, and put the blame on him, I think it's a combination of 
the all members of the whole Regents, and if that has to be 
changed or new -- you know, people should come up with 
suggestions, you know, or some kind of solution, so be it. But 
we're not going to do that here. 

The fact of the matter is that I have known Dr. 
del Junco for many years on a personal level and as a physician. 
As a physician, he has been. very committed. As a physician, he 
kept my mother alive. 


1 But that -- but as a physician also he brings an 

2 added value to the Board of Regents because, if I remember 

3 correctly, he is a doctor who also has a business savvy, and 

4 isn't that what we're going to need in the very near future in 

5 order to have all these new doctors, and to make sure that we 

6 bring them from the different diverse communities? They need to 

7 know how to compete. They have to have the tools. 

8 So, let's give them the tools. And I think that 

9 the tools are primarily information, that if these individuals, 

10 these students are given the right information, make it 

11 accessible to them -- 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sir, why don't you talk about 

13 the confirmation process and not general University policy. 

14 MR. SANCHEZ: Well, I'm going to. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you have anything to say 

16 about Dr. del Junco, say it. 

17 MR. SANCHEZ: I just said it. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your testimony. 

19 MR. SANCHEZ: Well, I think you're being rude to 

20 me. You're cutting me off, where you have listened — 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Look, we've got a long day. 

22 This is the first of three. 

23 If you want to say something specifically about 

24 Dr. del Junco, say it. I'm going to run this meeting. focused. 

25 MR. SANCHEZ: I am in focus, and I said it should 

26 be based on his qualifications, his commitment. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, we got you. 

28 MR. SANCHEZ: I have submitted for the record, as 


a matter of fact, my own testimony. I hope that you make the 
time to read it, and thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 


MR. RODRIGUEZ: My name is Mario Rodriguez, and 
I'm representing Council 2872 of LULAC, League of United Latin 
American Citizens in Southern California. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the 
Committee in support of Dr. del Junco ' s nomination to Board of 
Regents of the University of California. 

I have a speech here, but you know what, I'm just 
going to detour from that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can submit anything you 
want in writing for the record. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's fine. 

I just would like to just talk for a minute about 
-- it'll come from the heart. 

Dr. del Junco is a man that I really don't 
understand why he's at this point in time really wants to go 
through this in his life. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I asked him that question, 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: Why would he want to do this? 
Here's a man that one year ago, his wife was at a University 
hospital. And this man right there almost lost his wife one 
year ago because of some negligence at the University system 
that he's on the Board of Regents of. 

Let me tell you something. You know that man 


1 lost 20 pounds because he was there, day in and day out, with 

2 his wife. 

3 Yes, he may have missed some meetings. But you 

4 know what? If my wife was there, I would have missed every 

5 single meeting, too. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When was this? 

7 MR. RODRIGUEZ: A little under a year ago. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, he didn't miss those 

9 me.etings. He missed them ten years ago, but not a year ago. 

10 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm not here to get into the 

11 politics of all this, because there's plenty of newspapers here 

12 that have all ready spoke about that. 

13 And I just hope -- I just hope that we really 

14 just be fair-minded. Let's put politics aside for this 

15 important issue, because this man gives so much to the 

16 community. Gives so much to help people. 

17 You know, as Senator Polanco was here and spoke 

18 about Dr. del Junco . You know what? That hurts me from the 

19 heart, because here's one Hispanic that would not even sit down 

20 and at least hear this man out. If he had differences with this 

21 man, fine. I have differences with Dr. del Junco. I don't 

22 agree with everything he says, he votes on. 

23 But you know what? There's a time, and you can 

24 sit down, and you can speak your mind. You may not agree on 

25 everything, but at least, hopefully, come to some positive 

26 dialogue. 

27 Let me tell you, a man that came to this country 

28 as an immigrant from Cuba, forced from his homeland, let me tell 


you, I don't think there's too many people in this room that 
were forced from their homeland from Fidel Castro, who turned 
that country into communism. 

This man should be put up on a pedestal for what 
he's accomplished in his life. It hurts me from the bottom of 
my heart to see what this poor man has to go through, and all he 
wants to do. Senators, is help and give back to this community. 

So, all I'm asking is to please, put politics 
aside, and let's be fair to this man. And let's give him his 
day, and let's take a look at his record. And please, I 
strongly, strongly urge you to confirm this man. 

Senator, I understand you on your point about not 
denying any child the education. I'll tell you for one, this 
man would not try to deny anybody any education. 

And if we can come up with remedies to try and do 
— to ratify that, well then you know what? They're better off 
for all people, all students in this state. 

SENATOR AYALA: When the gentleman raises the 
fees, he's not helping everyone, sir. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You know what. Senator? I have a 
business, and you know what? The money has to come from -- 
something has to happen. Believe me, I don't like getting my 
taxes raised. I don't like a lot of things that happen. But 
you know what? There's only so much money that goes around. 
And I don't know the particulars about that, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: I've been here 23 years. So, I 
know about the monies and the lack thereof. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: You know a lot more than I do. 


1 Senator. 

2 I'm just saying, I don't know that. 

3 SENATOR AYALA: I'm impressed by the fact that 

4 the doctor stayed with his wife. I think most husbands would. 

5 Tell me, when did that happen? How long ago was 

6 that. 

1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A year ago. 

8 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I can't give you the exact date. 

9 SENATOR AYALA: A year ago. But prior to that, 

10 he didn't attend the meetings, so it had nothing to do with his 

11 wife being ill. 

12 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm not trying to make that a 

13 point of why he didn't attend the meetings. 

14 What I'm saying is that -- the point I really was 

15 trying to make on that, Senator, was the University system, yes, 

16 there are some flaws. Yes, there are some problems. We all 

17 realize that. And you know what? We need a man like this to be 

18 on the Board. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: You ask us to set politics 

20 aside. The problem is, I've heard that he's very politically 

21 involved. Why don't you tell him to set politics aside when 

22 he's dealing with education? 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He was a Regent when he chose 

24 to be Chair of the California Republican Party, when he chose to 

25 sign a lot of questionable attack mail pieces sent against my 

26 colleagues. 

27 Now, that wasn't somebody who had much regard for 
.28 the nonpolitical role of Regents. You know, I've had colleagues 


say to me in the Senate, "I've never met this guy. I don't know 
him. The only thing I know about him is when I was running for 
the Senate, mail landed in my district, attacking me personally 
that was inaccurate, and it was signed by him as Chair of the 
Republican Party." 

So, that's all I know about him. So, I'm voting 
no for that reason. 

MR. RODRIGUEZ: What I'm hearing — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So the point is this, sir. 
You come to us and say, don't be political. The politics 
started there, not here. That's the point. We don't need to 
debate it. 

You've all ready said it. You've said it. 
That's your belief. You're just wrong about that point. 

All right, next witness. 

MR. SANCHEZ: I'm speaking against Dr. del 
Junco's confirmation. My name is Rafael Sanchez. And I'm the 
Legislative Chairman for the California Hispanic Chambers of 
Commerce. We represent over 8,000 businesses in California. 

We are opposing his nomination or confirmation 
for three reasons. First, we feel that the problems that have 
surrounded the UC system over the past decade, i.e., high 
administrative salaries, lack of coherent fiscal strategy, 
affirmative action, are due to the failure of the Regents in 
their oversight responsibilities. As a 12-year member of this 
body, he should not be reappointed based on the end results. 

Secondly, we would urge the State Senate to hold 
the Governor to a higher standard of appointment in order to 


1 safeguard our educational system. We need individuals who are 

2 truly independent thinkers. They need to understand that they 

3 represent all of California and not just the Governor. 

4 Thirdly, we feel that Dr. del Junco ' s vote on 

5 affirmative action had more to do with presidential politics 

6 than with education. 

1 We urge a no vote. Thank you. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for being brief. 

9 Others? Any more witnesses here, raise your 

10 hands? All right, last one, I guess.- 

11 MS. DELANEY: My name is Nancy Delaney, and I 

12 work with the Committee for a Responsible University. And I've 

13 lived in Berkeley for 30 years. And I've had a chance to see 

14 what the impact of the University is, because we are a small 

15 town. It's really in our face. It really impacts on the way we 

16 experience our daily lives. 

17 And so, I have been experiencing the results of 

18 Regents' decisions in many ways -- 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Get to the point. 

20 MS. DELANEY: — during del Junco 's 

21 administration with the Regents. 

22 And I would like to recommend that you do not 

23 confirm his regency. And the primary reason is the 

24 inaccessability of the Regents. We experience them as feudal 

25 lords now. There's really no accountability. 

26 He hasn't really shown his interest in people. 

27 He may do it at the personal level and as a medical doctor, but 

28 when he is functioning as a Regent, he makes decisions that have 


terrible consequences in people's lives. And it's almost like 
dropping bombs where you don't even know where they're going to 
hit . , 

Some of the places where they've hit in Berkeley 
are the UC toxics nuclear storage near populations. The police 
abuses with no civilian review. We are actually experiencing 
them like state police now. And they're -- they have changed 
under del Junco's administration. They have changed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is what you mean — 

MS. DELANEY: The UC police, the campus police. 
They are no longer security police. They are actively, 
aggressively attacking poor people, youth of color. And del 
Junco -- they have no consideration for the way that the police 
are functioning. And there's no mechanisms. 

There's other things. There's the land 
acquisitions and the fact that they don't have to adhere to the 
local zoning laws. Union busting, the unions -- the student fee 
hikes. The affirmative action. 

The over enrollment in our town with a continuous 
disregard for when we have an overload of cars, they know how 
many students fit in our town, and they, every year, go way over 
that enrollment. 

And then the racism, sexism, and homophobia in 
the tenure to faculty, and the fact that there is no 
accountability. No genuine ethical way to review the fact of 
the way that the corporate money is taking over and defining the 
quality of education and the quality of our life in a campus 


1 For that reason, we really recommend that you 

2 consider Barbara Lee's bill, SCA, I would think. It is for the 

3 Board of Regents -- 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : We don't want to talk about 

5 legislative things today. 

6 MS. DELANEY: We really need to have a different 

7 system where we have input, and that there -- we have continuous 

8 input about the results of the decisions, because it just can't 

9 go on like this. This is not a democracy that we live in, in 

10 Berkeley, with the Regents deciding what's going to happen there 

11 and living someplace else. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions? Any additional 

13 comment? Has everyone testified? 

14 Yes, Dr. del Junco, if you'll come back up. 

15 Isn't it fun to have all these people get up and 

16 say good and bad things about you? 

17 DR. DEL JUNCO: It's a long, long day. . 

18 You know. Senator, certainly you know — ■ 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It sounded like you maybe have 

20 notes and want to make comment first? 

21 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes, I want to make a comment, if 

22 possible. 

23 SENATOR HUGHES: Can I ask questions? 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll have time for questions. 

25 DR. DEL JUNCO: Let me make a comment. 

26 I am going to make a couple of corrections. It 

27 seems to me that this body here has access to confirm much of 

28 what has been said here, and some of the accusations. 


1 I am not asking for a confirmation for a 12-year 

2 appointment. It's only a 3-year appointment, a correction, 

3 because it's been repeatedly said. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The other two are 12 years. 

5 His is three, the remainder of Mr. Bergener's term. 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: Exclusively. 

7 Second, about the fees. At the time that I voted 
for the fees, every member of that Board of Regents voted for a 

9.- fee increase. The faculty recommended fee increases. The 

10 Chancellor recommended fee increases. 

11 It was at the time of the budget crunch. And I 

12 understand that the Legislature, as they debated the vote, 

13 talked about raising fees. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: Let me ask you. 

15 The faculty and Chancellors and everybody else 

16 asked for this raise? 


And you supported it? 

I supported it. 

They also were against 





21 affirmative action. All of them were. 

22 Why didn't you support them at the time? 

23 DR. DEL JUNCO: Certainly, your Honor, I don't 

24 support everything and anything that they recommend, but in this 

25 particular case, we had a $400 million downfall. By increasing 

26 the fees, we were able to make up $100 million, and the other 

27 $300 million were made up by cutting here and there, freezing 

28 the salaries of the faculty, freezing all the benefits. 


1 SENATOR AYALA: On this point, let me just read 

2 you an article that appeared in Saturday's Bee . And it says, 

3 "UC Urges Approved Bonus." 

4 You talk about lack of money, "The University of 

5 California Regents Friday approved a second -- second -- 

6 retirement bonus for retiring UCLA Chancellor Charles Young. 
1 Young, 65, who has led UCLA since 1968, was promised a 

8 supplemental retirement package in 1992. 

9 "This was just before the scandal broke out over 

10 news that then-retired David Gardner was getting a one million 

11 dollar bonus, while the University was hiking students fees." 

12 Can I repeats that to you? Do you understand 

13 what you did at the expense of the students? 

14 "UC official later announced they were curbing 

15 special perks for retiring executives. In Young's case, a 

16 package worth about $2,000 dollars a month was approved, but 

17 carried out a retirement date of 1999. On Friday, Regents . 

18 agreed to change the effective date to his actual retirement 

19 date of 1997." 

20 That means that Young will be collecting that 

21 money on top of another retirement, worth about $203,000 but 

22 we're in such a bind we increase student fees. Now, explain 

23 that to me . 

24 DR. DEL JUNCO: First of all, many of those 

25 commitments were made years ago by the then-President of the 

26 University. Since then, the rules of the game have been 

27 changed. The Boards of Regents, have taken back the authority. 

28 But these were commitments that legally the University was 


bound, because they were made by the then-President Gardner to 
these individuals. 

I wasn't there yesterday when the vote was taken 
because I had left, because I knew there was a vote for the 
election of the Chairman, and I did not want to influence. 

Mr. Russell, who voted for me for Chairman of the 
party [sic], and yet here he is today -- Chairman of the 
Regents. And here he is today, voting against me. I left the 
room at the time that vote was taken. 

SENATOR AYALA: You didn't vote for this? 

SENATOR AYALA: No, I was not there, but I want 
to clarify that these are commitments that were made by the 
then-President Gardner. And we had delegated that 

SENATOR AYALA: It was binding on this Board of 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

We have taken that back. Senator, that authority. 

SENATOR AYALA: The Board should recognize that 
and quit tinkering with student fees. 

When they have that much money to give to 
retirees, what about the students? We're supposed to educate 
the students, not pay for retirees so they can go with a big 
pension at the expense of the students. And I resent that very 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, the last three votes — 
I would appreciate if we could put this in the proper context — 
I did vote for a student fee initially, so did a lot of members 


1 of the Legislature and everybody else. 

2 But the last three votes, three times, Dr. del 

3 Junco, with three other Regents, have voted against it for the 

4 very precise reason that you're giving here. 

5 And I would hope that I ' d be given the 

6 consideration of judging the situation according to the 

7 fiduciary responsibility that I have. I did that so, thinking 

8 that I was doing the right thing. 

9 • Having talked about that, let me talk about for 

10 one minute about this merger. 

11 Yes, it is true that Dr. del Junco has 

12 continually spoken his concern about the issue of governance, 

13 public records, public disclosure, and so on. 

14 It is also true that I voted once in favor of 

15 continuing the study of the process in this study of having an 

16 independent study of the process. 

17 However, it's true, too, that Dr. del Junco is 

18 awaiting the total, total disclosure of the package to know what 

19 is the risk for the University of California after we come into 

20 this merger. Where is the responsibility of the University 

21 vis-a-vis the medical schools and the other schools of the 

22 University of San Francisco. 

23 Then I will make up my mind if I'm going to vote 

24 in one direction or another direction. 

25 But it's obvious that the only reason the nurses 

26 are opposing me is because I'm in favor of the merger. Well/ 

27 they are holding accountable because of the vote that took 

28 place. 


I suggest to you that perhaps in the next 60 
dayS/ you will know exactly where my vote is, if you allow me to 
vote, you know, because my confirmation is not due until March. 

Before I answer questions, I want to answer 
Mr. Polanco. I challenge Mr. Polanco to bring one single case 
in my 40 years of practice of medicine in East Los Angeles in 
which I have denied medical care to any individual vis-a-vis 
legally, legal, white, Nicaraguan, black, who ever it is. A 
single person in my lifetime. 

I think you insinuate because I, as member of the 
Republican Party and as Chairman of the Party, endorsed 187, as 
an individual, as a Chairman of the Party. 

I want you, ladies and gentlemen, to review the 
minutes of the Board of Regents, and you will find out that not 
once the issue of 187 was discussed, directly or indirectly, in 
there by me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wait, wait, wait. Oh, you 
mean as a Regent? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean just the fact that 
you were chairing the Republican Party when they contributed 
about $300,000 to Yes on Prop. 187? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: But I suggest to you that because 
I become a Regent, I don't think that I am resigned of all my 
constitutional rights and the First Amendment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I absolutely agree. 

However, then we get to assess your participation 
in things like advocacy for Prop. 187, which, by the way, since 


1 we've been told, gee, at least by some, not yourself, we really 

2 can't deal with the vestiges of discrimination at the University 

3 level with affirmative action policies. Let's start lower. 

4 Well, 187 kicks thousands, tens of thousands of 

5 kids out of public school in California. And it is currently 

6 unconstitutional, that provision, unless the Court someday 

7 changes its views. It didn't bother you to be an advocate for 

8 it, however. 

9 DR. DEL JUNCO: You're a member of your party. I 

10 am sure that as a leader in the Democratic Party, you must not 

11 agree 100 percent with everything that comes out. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're right about that. 

13 DR. DEL JUNCO: And you, to assume that Dr. del 

14 Junco agrees with every item and every aspect of 187 is no more 

15 fair than for me -- 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Wait. You were an advocate 

17 for 187. You said, vote yes on 187. 

18 DR. DEL JUNCO: But I was the Chairman of the 

19 Party. 

20 And I say to you that I was for 187, but not 

21 necessarily for that portion that you describe. Now, I have 

22 been accused -- 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I noticed a lot of 

24 qualifications in your public statements, like, yes on 187. 

25 Not, well, mostly it's okay. 

2 6 DR. DEL JUNCO: No, no. You and I have 

27 discussed, and I believe that I'm known to be a pretty straight 

28 person. 


But for Polanco to assume that because I was in 
favor of 187 that I have denied medical care to the poor, I 
suggest to you that that is an extrapolation that goes beyond 

CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: I missed that because I was 
presenting a bill in the Assembly. 

But we, I think, know of your personal charitable 
and philanthropic activities in East L.A., and you should get a 
lot of credit for those. That is, that you have personally 
provided medical care without asking people for proof of 
citizenship or anything else. That you have done that probably 
over the decades, countless numbers of times. 

So, I think he was talking about the policy, not 
your own personal practices. Your personal practices are 
exemplary in this respect. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Finally, before I take questions, 
I want to make it and ask of this Senate Rules Committee to 
access the minutes of U.S. Postal Service -- of the Board of 
Regent, of the Board of Regents, and find out specifically 
how -- if any polarization has taken place. 

Mr. Russell here today stated to you that in the 
course of the meetings, I never -- he never heard me politicize 
this once. He only said that it was in social events, in a 
dinner, or whatever, in which I recognized Senator 
or Congressman Clair Bergener as a long-time Republican. 

You know, I suggest to you that that is a true 
fact. And if that is a bond, so be it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And a very fine man. 


1 DR. DEL JUNCO: And a very fine man. 

2 But he objects to any form of -- and he called 

3 that politicization. 

4 But he has testified here against me, and at the 

5 same time, when asked, he has said that not once did I -- did I 

6 politicize or make a statement that was political. 

7 I suggest because I believe that it is important. 

8 You got time to review the record. I think there's time to 

9 . research much of the testimony. I am here. I do not want to 

10 engage in that portion, but I beg of you to research the 

11 testimony that's been presented here. Some of it, it's rather 

12 extreme. 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Most of it is philosophical. 

14 They disagree with your view on fees, or governance, or 187, or 

15 209, or the merger of UC and Stanford medical system. So, most 

16 of it's philosophical. 

17 DR. DEL JUNCO: I appreciate, really, the 

18 courtesy that's been extended to me here today. On the one 

19 hand, it's been a pretty rough day, but I do appreciate your, 

20 personally, your courtesy. 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Doctor, let me acknowledge 

22 Senator Brulte, but also to mention that when he initially 

23 lobbied for you, his claim was very personal. That is, medical 

24 service that you provided for his own family. 

25 I just wanted to acknowledge that there's another 

26 example of this poor kid from San Bernardino getting a little 

27 help. 

28 SENATOR BRULTE: Before we go to the questions. 


1 just one technical. 

2 When did your wife get sick, and for how long was 

3 she sick? 

4 DR. DEL JUNCO: My wife in a period of three 

5 years sustained three intestinal obstructions. 

6 SENATOR BRULTE : When did that begin? 

7 DR. DEL JUNCO: It began around '94, '95. 

8 By the way, going to that question, I would 

9 appreciate if the Secretary of the Board in my office can give 

10 you a record of my absenteeism. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I have it. I mean 1985, 85 

12 percent. In '86, 77/ in '88, 77/ m '90, 55/ '91, 66. '92, 66; 

13 '93, 44. 

14 DR. DEL JUNCO: That's when my wife was sick. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: '95, 55; '96, 53. Current, 

16 100 percent. Those are the attendance records. 

17 They're pretty good except they're worse than any 

18 other Regent, apparently. 

19 DR. DEL JUNCO: Can I ask the secretary to 

20 submits you information about the other Regents as comparison? 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sure. I don't have them all 

22 with me. 

23 DR. DEL JUNCO: I don't think that I'm the worst, 

24 but nevertheless, I might be wrong. 

25 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I have Parsky and Preuss with 

26 me, and of course they haven't been there as long, so that would 

27 partly an explanation. They're 100 percent, as were you this 

28 last year. 


1 Senator Hughes. 

2 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 

3 You show that you have great medical training 

4 because you have great patients. 

5 DR. DEL JUNCO: Speaking of today? 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can tell she's married to 

7 a doctor. 

8 SENATOR HUGHES: And he's patient with me, too, 

9 and thank you. 

10 What characteristic does the UC Medical School 

11 have that they use in considering admission for applicants to 

12 their medical schools? 

13 DR. DEL JUNCO: Well, they are now currently 

14 there is a study going on about — as requested by the Board of 

15 Regents, an ad hoc committee, that we will be receiving a report 

16 in September to see what are the characteristics that you say. 

17 I mean, background, historical economical disadvantage, and 

18 personal disadvantages and so on. 

19 And the Board feels that we can come about an 

20 affirmative action program that was not racial driven. 

21 I think that this -- let me just make this 

22 position. The only position that the Board has is against 

23 racial driven. All the other characteristics that were talked 

24 about here, they're all in place, your Honor. None of them has 

25 been excluded. 

26 SENATOR HUGHES: I still want to ask you the 

27 question, you're telling me that they're going to have a study 

28 to consider all of these things? 


DR. DEL JUNCO: It's done. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I ask you now as a Regent, how 
long have been a Regent? How many years? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Twelve years. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And in your twelve years, you 
should know, I would imagine, especially since this is your 
profession, what characteristics are considered when an 
applicant applies to one of your campus medical schools? That's 
my question. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: TVn applicant applies to medical 
school, it's his grade point average in college is considered, 
as well as his family background, if he's an underprivileged 
person, his leadership. 


DR. DEL JUNCO: Or her, both, okay. 

The point that I'm going to say is his 
leadership, his participation in other areas, and then he is 

All of these characteristics are considered by 
the interviewers, and the interviewers then, you know, make the 
determination. This interview is carried by teachers and 
professors, as well as students form part of the panel. 

Up to now, race was considered as only part of 
these characteristics, because there was the Bakke decision that 
came down many years ago that states, or what appears it's 
changed now, that yes, race may be used, not as a sole 
determining factor, but as a contributing factor. And these 
have been taken into consideration. 


1 Now, we talked about the study. The study is 

2 finished. The study was over year, fourteen months ago, and 

3 the study is finished. 

4 I am appointing a committee, a permanent 

5 committee who is going to deal with adversity. In fact, Senator 

6 Brulte's going to be chairman of that committee, because I'm 

7 personally very much interested in finding a resolution of this 

8 problem. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: And you know that those 

10 statistics have been thrown out to you before about the fact 

11 that Hispanic and Af rican-7\merican applicants to the medical 

12 schools have dropped by some 22 percent. That's twice the 

13 national decline. 

14 How do you feel about that? Does that bother 

15 you? 

16 DR. DEL JUNCO: I don't only feel terrible about 

17 that, and it is why I am proceeding to do what I have said. But 

18 I feel also terrible about the thousands and thousands of 

19 children and young students who have no access to our system 

20 because of the problems with the K-12 system. 

21 Let's not forget that 25 years ago, only 3 

22 percent of blacks and Hispanics were eligible for the UC system, 

23 and today, 25 years later, it still is 3 percent. 

24 This must be corrected. And we see thousands, 

25 thousands of young men and women dropping out of school. And 

26 these people are not eligible. Senator, not because of grade 

27 point average. They're not eligible because they don't even 

28 have the subject matters required and mandated to come to the UC 



Every year in the Boards of Regents, I have 
addressed this issue. It falls in deaf ears. 

This is why I am appointing a committee that is 
going to deal with the State Superintendent. A committee that 
is going to deal actively, on a monthly basis, with the 
President's office. 

This is horrible, not only what happened with 
attorneys and with the young medical students, but with 
everybody. And this has to be changed. And we just cannot 
satisfactory ourselves, to be very candid, throwing a bone to a 
handfull of people and think that we have satisfied the needs of 
our state and our community. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since the affirmative action 
decision was made by the Regents, I know that you realize these 
statistics, but I just want to repeat it again. 

The African-American admissions to Boalt Hall Law 
School this fall fell 81 percent, and Latino admissions fell 50 
percent . 

How do you feel about that? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Terrible. This is why I made the 
comment that I just made to you. This is totally unacceptable/ 
and it's unacceptable, I can tell you without any reservation, 
to every Regent who has talked to me, and to believe that we're 
willing to accept these figures, I mean, it's just 
incomprehensible . 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that this decline 
in these minority applications were due to the perception that 


1 they would not be welcome, nor would they even have the remotest 

2 chance of being admitted to UC because of the abolishment of 

3 affirmative action position that was taken by the Regents? 

4 DR. DEL JUNCO: I have been told that that has 

5 been perhaps the most prevailing factor. 

6 Again, we are doing special evaluations to 

7 determine what other factors might be involved so it can be 

8 corrected. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: What do you think can we do, if 

10 anything, to reverse this trend, to have students believe that 

11 their ethnicity will not work against them? 

12 DR. DEL JUNCO: You know, this is not a problem 

13 only to the Board of Regents. Let's be quite candid with all 

14 ourselves. 

15 The Senate is involved. The Legislature body. 

16 We're probably going to have to come up with additional funds in 

17 these areas where they've been so deprived. 

18 The issue here is the K-12 system. The issue 

19 here is that the majority of these children are not eligible 

20 because, A, they're dropouts, or B, they don't even have the 

21 subject matters. 

22 I believe that this is going to require a total 

23 dedication by all of us. This is why I'm taking my part in 

24 requesting from, the President immediately a report, now that the 

25 ad hoc committee report is in, and I'm appointing a committee. 

26 The people on that committee are not all pro SP 1, SP 2 . 

27 Certainly, Regent Brophy and Regent Gonzales, and Regent Sayles, 
.28 these people are going to be sitting that committee. 


And we are going to collaborate and try to see if 
we can't persuade others to help out. Because these young men 
and women are coming to us already deprived with an opportunity 
to participate in the process because of the poor education that 
they have received going through the K-12 system. 

SENATOR HUGHES: As we approach the 21st Century, 
they tell us that our state will fast become a minority majority 

Is that a concern of yours, and what should we do 
in terms of providing that we have more physicians to care for 
this population? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Number one, it is a concern I 
have through the years, make those projections to many of my 
friends. I've done it in a political way. I've done it a 
nonpolitical way. 

I think this is the most serious issue that faces 
the State of California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's the most serious issue 
there is for the next hundred years. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. We are creating 
here an apartheid society where the Hispanics are not going to 
be eligible for the better jobs in the market place. 

So, it is important for us to come together. It 
might require additional funds to go into East Los Angeles, to 
go into south west -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: I hear of all of the wonderful 
things that you do as a physician in your community. 

Are you member of the National Hispanic Medical 


1 Association. 

2 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes. 

3 SENATOR HUGHES: Good, I'm glad to know that. 

4 So, that I would hope that that Association would 

5 be helping you to reach the goals' that we need. 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: Not only, there is an association 

7 in the State of California who has become rather strong in the 

8 last four or five years. We are very actively involved in the 

9 same issues that you are. They are paying for scholarships. 

10 And we got to get methods and procedures where. 

11 about we have to get additional young men and women applying to 

12 medical school. 

13 The point here is that I am an individual who has 

14 been portrayed here today as being against the improvement of 

15 the standing of Hispanics in the community, and nothing is 

16 further from the truth. 

17 SENATOR HUGHES: What's your understanding of the 

18 Academic Senate's authority over educational policy and 

19 admissions? There's always been a great concern that those 

20 people who donate the most to the University would get 

21 preferential treatment. 

22 Is that a concern of yours? 

23 DR. DEL JUNCO: This is a — 

24 SENATOR HUGHES: And how do we function? 

25 DR. DEL JUNCO: This is a great concern of mine, 

26 so much that the issue came up at our meeting in June, and this 

27 has been referred to the Senate for its recommendation to 

28 establish procedures so this will no longer continue. 


And the Board of Regents, the only reason that we 
did not take action, first of all on it, was because this has 
not been dealt with by the Senate. And you know, we have talked 
a lot about the issue of governance and shared governance. 
Therefore, we felt that following all the standards, and all the 
commitments that the Regents have made to the faculty of shared 
governance, we have not only sent it back to them, but have 
requested a report, I think it's 90 days or whatever is the term 
limit there. 

SENATOR HUGHES: We're looking at revising the 
way that students from poorer performing high schools are 
selected for college and university. This is a great problem in 
my community, a problem not only for the ethnic minority, but 
for the poor population in general. 

And I want to know how you react to something 
that I am proposing. Senate Constitutional Amendment to amend 
the Constitution to choose the top 12.5 percent of students from 
each high school, who would be entitled to a UC admissions in an 
effort to guarantee that the students who try the hardest will 
get there, and it would consequently reflect the ethnic 
diversity of our state's population. 

What do you think of that? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, I do not know the 
details of it because I have not read that piece of legislation. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about the concepts? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: But I heard about the concept. 
I think it's extremely interesting. 

There are others who believe that we don't have 


1 to go twelve-and-a-half, that we should go only six-and-a-half, 

2 but I think this is a concept that deserves every exploration 

3 that one can give it. 

4 I believe that we've got to bring the Senate and 

5 the faculty and everybody to the table, because it is this kind 

6 of innovative approaches that we're going to have to face if 

7 we're going to see some resolution of this problem. 

8 So, this is extremely interesting. I just heard 

9 about it not too long ago. 

10 I was not privileged to the information. But as 

11 I was preparing myself to come before you, I did become 

12 acquainted with this. Sort of be extremely presumptive on my 

13 part, as well as I know, to endorse this or go against it, but I 

14 think this is the type of proposition that I would hope that 

15 this new committee that we are appointing is going to bring to 

16 the table, and discuss, and see what is best for the University 

17 and for the students. 

18 SENATOR HUGHES: Would you be willing to work 

19 with us to see — 

20 DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely. 

21 SENATOR HUGHES: -- to see that something like 

22 this comes about? 

23 DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely. 

24 SENATOR HUGHES: So that those who have had the 

25 least chance in the past will have a better chance in the 
2 6 future. 

27 So, what do you think happens then to the medical 

28 schools and the law schools? Will these percentages change? 



DR. DEL JUNCO: Now when we're talking about 
medical schools and law schools -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: They have to get out of high 
school first, so I'm talking about the high achievers. If there 
are a certain number of seats that we're going to guarantee will 
be preserved for those students at the highest academic scale in 
the high schools, then consequently, are these same students 
going to be admissible to our medical and law schools? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I suggest to you that I cannot 
extrapolate if, because we go out and we admit twelve-and-a-half 
percent, the top of the school, that this will in turn will 
be -- we'll be able to gain any kind of successes when it gets 
to the graduate school. 

But I think that we have today numbers, and we 
can, with our computers, we can attempt to extrapolate as to 
what would have happened if we would have put this in place, you 
know, at the level of the graduate schools. 

But I think that we can come up with figures that 
can tell us, you know, what will happen, what percentage of 
these students are going to be dropouts. 

We know that these medical school students that 
we admit from minority areas, the dropout is no more than from 
other Anglo white areas currently. 

So, it might be very possible that you're 
absolutely correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But then some of our students 
never even think of going to medical school, nor do they think 
of going to law school, because they don't think that they can 

I 108 

1 get in. 

2 So, what do we do to correct that? 

3 DR. DEL JUNCO: I think a man like your husband 

4 and myself have to be out there in the public eye, have to be 

5 dealing with the students to demonstrate to our students that 

6 there's an opportunity. 

7 You see, many of our students do not even 

8 understand the great opportunity that's out there, and that they 

9 should take advantage of those opportunities. 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: Well, historically, my husband 

11 has been mentor to many, many medical students. And he's 

12 currently mentoring medical students now, and as member of the 

13 National Medical Association, that's one of their projects. 

14 I imagine the National Hispanic Medical 

15 Association does that. Have you ever done that? Do you think 

16 many successful professionals like yourself should be doing that 

17 kind of thing, mentoring people who look like them, who are of 

18 their same culture, to help them get to where they want to be? 

19 DR. DEL JUNCO: I am mentoring. I've mentored 

20 many, many, in fact, currently there's two doctors, Santa Marta 

21 Hospital Emergency Room, who, I believe that my example, I 

22 believe that I am a role model for a lot of people out there in 

23 the community. And I have done nothing in my life but to try 

24 and be a role model for all of these people. 

25 I believe that mentoring is perhaps the most 

2 6 important in a way that one can succeed in accomplishing what 

27 you're talking about. 

2 8 SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you. 


SENATOR AYALA: Dr. del Junco, I just have two 
more questions. 

The Board of Regents, in May of 1997, set aside a 
proposal by Regent Ward Connerly to ends VIP admissions, the 
practice of admitting students whose family has been substantial 
donors to the University. The Chancellors complain a change in 
policy would deny their flexibility. The Los Angeles Times 
reported that some VIP applicants have been admitted to UC on_ 
the basis of their family connections after being initially 
turned down. 

What is your position on banning donor based VIP 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I'm against it. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're against it. Would you 
vote if it came before you -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That was not put aside. That was 
sent to the faculty and to the Senator for -- and requested a 
report under shared governance principles. 

SENATOR AYALA: It never came before you for a 

DR. DEL JUNCO: It was tabled because it had not 
gone through the Senate and the faculty, and it was a violation 
of the shared governance. This issue has not been put aside. 
This issue has been referred with the understanding that it's 
coming before the Board. 

And I have stated, and by the way, I'm not one of 
those Regents that's been identified involved in any of this 
process. I think in my 12 years, I have never called once. So, 


1 again, the record speaks for itself. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: Regent Ward Connerly was out of 

3 line on that issue? 

4 DR. DEL JUNCO: No. I think Ward Connerly was 

5 correct. 

6 SENATOR AYALA: But he was premature? 

7 DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely. I think the mistake 

8 he made is that he violated the shared governance principle, and 
9. had not referred the matter -- 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : Wait a minute. You didn't 

11 care about that what it came the Prop. 209 affirmative action 

12 policy. 

13 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes, because it went — let me 

14 tell you. 

15 Shared governance does not mean that you have to 

16 agree all the time. It means that you give them an opportunity 

17 to give an opinion. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, they all were able to give 

19 an opinion in the case of affirmative action? Did the faculty 

20 all have an opportunity prior to the Board of Regents? 

21 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes. We discussed this issue for 

22 a period of almost a year. There were a lot of meetings. We 

23 received numerous reports from the faculty. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You think the shared 

25 governance policy was respected with respect to affirmative 

26 action? 

27 DR. DEL JUNCO: Well, Senator, let me just say 

28 that I know that there are a lot of people feel that the shared 


governance was violated because some people interpret that 
shared governance means consensus. 

I mean, I personally believe that we did not 
violate it, that we heard their communication. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm just making sure I 
understand your view on this. 

It wasn't violated in the case of affirmative 
action policy, but it was with respect to the special admits? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Because the special admit issue 
was never considered. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: One more question. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982, that was 15 
years ago, Tyler vs. Doe , that undocumented children are 
entitled to a public education because they are in this country 
through no fault of their own. 

As a result of this 1982 decision. Proposition 
187 appears to be unconstitutional on its face. 

You were the driving force for that proposition. 
Why would you, a long standing member of the UC Board of 
Regents, support an unconstitutional denial of public education 
to an estimated 300,000 children in California? 

Now, I have the Constitution copy, a copy right 
in front of me. I'm not an attorney, but I tell what it is says 
under Amendment 14, Section One. It says that, "All persons 
born or naturalized in the United States ..." all persons born. 
It doesn't say that the parents have to be legal or illegal. 


1 moral or immoral. It says if they're born here, they are 

2 full-fledged citizens, entitled to all the benefits that a 

3 citizen should receive. 

4 Why would you support a proposition that's 

5 unconstitutional on its face? 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, I don't want to -- I'm 
"7 not an attorney either, but let me just say this to you. 

8 A child that is born in the United States is a 

9 citizen. 

10 SENATOR AYALA: You bet. 

11 DR. DEL JUNCO: And 187 does not deprive them of 

12 that citizenship. And 187 does not take from that citizen the 

13 right of education. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're wrong. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Didn't Prop. 187 deny that? 

16 DR. DEL JUNCO: Not if he's a citizen. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're wrong. That's not — 
IB DR. DEL JUNCO: If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. 

19 But that was my understanding, and honestly, my understanding. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's what the dispute's 

21 about. That's what the dispute is about. 

22 The Governor's view is, somehow, if the parent 

23 got here illegally, the child should be denied educational 

24 services. It clearly violates -- 

25 DR. DEL JUNCO: Born here. 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. It clearly violates not 

27 just the words, the plain meaning that Senator Ayala, as one of 
.28 our better non-lawyers -- 


SENATOR AYALA: Let me finish what else it says. 
And I'll repeat, "All persons born or naturalized in the United 
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of 
the United States and of the state in where they reside." 

Why would you deny these people, knowing that 
they are legally entitled to that? Their parents may not be, 
but they're born here. They're full-fledged citizens. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I respectfully submit that you 
are 100 percent right, and my understanding was that the 
children that they brought here from other countries -- 

SENATOR AYALA: No, we're- not talking about 
those. We're talking about those that are born here in this 

DR. DEL JUNCO: My understanding — 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me clarify this. 

Senator Ayala, your question dealt with Tyler vs. 
Doe , which dealt with undocumented children. Children who are 
born in this country are citizens. They are not undocumented. 
The Tyler decision did not, in fact, deal with that issue. 

SENATOR AYALA: The children born in this country 
from undocumented citizens -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: Children born in this country 
from undocumented citizens are citizens under the U.S. 
Constitution, and they have every right and privilege of 

The Tyler decision dealt with undocumented 
children. Those are children who are not born in this 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, no. Children without 

2 documentation that are in public schools in Texas. It's 

3 factually different. 

4 DR. DEL JUNCO: I respectfully submit that my 

5 understanding was that anybody -- 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We understand what your -- 

7 DR. DEL JUNCO: -- that anybody who was born here 

8 was an /American citizen, and that 187 did not apply, so much 

9 that they talked about introducing Constitutional amendment that 

10 would take away from those children the right of citizenship. 

11 Even that discussion took place. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: It would take a change to the 

13 Constitution to do that. 

14 DR. DEL JUNCO: To do that. 

15 SENATOR AYALA: Why were you involved in denying 

16 them that — 

17 DR. DEL JUNCO: I am not for this. I am not for, 

18 and have never been for, denying a young child, born in the 

19 United States of America, or born elsewhere from an American 

20 citizen, the right of citizenship. I've never supported that, 

21 and I would never support it. 

22 SENATOR AYALA: Didn't Proposition 187 deal with 

23 this subject matter? 

24 DR. DEL JUNCO: No, it didn't. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: What did it do? 

2 6 DR. DEL JUNCO: It dealt with those children who 

27 came to the United States from illegal — illegal citizens or 

28 undocumented workers. 


SENATOR AYALA: Those who are born in this 
country — 

DR. DEL JUNCO: They were citizens. 

SENATOR AYALA: -- whether the parents are 
illegal or not, are full-fledged citizens? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely, and 187 did not — 
and you forgive me. Senator. I am going to look it up, and I 
will stand corrected, but my understanding is that 187 did not 
deal with American citizens, and those children are American 
citizens . 

SENATOR AYALA: It provides dilemma for the 
federal government, because how can the parents return to their 
country of origin and take with them a citizen of this country? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I agree with you 100 percent. I 
have no contention, and I would never support it. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no more questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Just for the record, if you had 
to point to one, or two, or three things you believe you've 
accomplished in your tenure as a Regent, what would they be? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good question. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I'm extremely proud of having, in 
spite of everything, to have been elected Chairman of this Board 
unanimously, and that includes students, and that includes 
alumni, and faculty, twice, as late as last Friday. 

I think my contributions have been particularly 
in the medical field. We have gone through a horrendous crisis 
where every one of our medical centers, which, by the way, are 


1 primarily very important for our medical school3/ were almost 

2 going into bankruptcy. Today we see UCLA projecting a $40 

3 million profit. San Francisco itself projects a profit over 

4 $20 million. 

5 I don't have to tell you people about the success 

6 of our UC Davis in Sacramento. We have turned this around in a 

7 market place that would be very difficult. I have been the lead 

8 person, not only in advising my fellows, but educating my fellow 

9 Regents in the whole process, and how complex it is. 

10 I am very proud ever having gone through the 

11 budget crisis at a time in which we had a $400 million deficit, 

12 and we were able to cut in the amount of over $400 million over 

13 and above the $100 million that we got from tuition fees. 

14 And the most important thing is that we did not 

15 lose one single student. 

16 I am very, very proud of my contribution on the 

17 tenth campus. Sure, we could not proceed ahead with the tenth 

18 campus because of the budget crisis. But I can assure you that 

19 the tenth campus is a very important issue for the University. 

20 And if I ever have a vision for this school, it is the tenth 

21 campus, because it will access for the young men and women in 

22 the valley, San Joaquin Valley, access to the UC system. And 

23 working with the state, the University of California state 

24 schools, we can work a plan. 

25 I think these are very important. And I did work 

26 very hard with then-Regent Kolligian, who was just terminating 

27 his 12 years. 

28 These are issues that are very important. These 


are what we should be addressing. And like I said, ladies and 
gentlemen, if you don't believe me that I am going to do all 
these things that I'm talking, my appointment is not due until 
March of next year. Give me a chance. Let me see if I complied 
with your request and with the request of Brulte. 

I have been actively pursuing these issues that 
you ladies and gentlemen are talking about. I bring at the 
table at this time great experience of 12 years at a time where 
this issue of the medical centers and our medical schools is a 
very serious issue to this University. 

And I believe that the record will show if you go 
through the minutes that I have brought these issues to the 
table. The very issue that the Senator talked about concerning 
the preferences for certain people. This was not put away. 
When I was requested to put it in the agenda, I put it on the 

The issue concerning affirmative action is on the 
agenda for September. We are not running away from the very 
issues which are troubling this institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Doctor, I'd like to ask you a 
couple questions. First, looking at your resume, it's quite 
extensive and impressive. You've had numerous accomplishments 
in a variety of fields. 

I'm trying to account for some years, from the 
late '50s to the late '60s. Where were you working then? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I came to this country in 1949. 
And I was an intern at Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital, then 
later took my residence at the Queen of Angels Hospital. 


1 Then I went to the University of Pennsylvania at 

2 graduate school, and upon finishing, I joined the United States 

3 Army, and I was Chief of Surgery at Camp Hanford Army 

4 Hospital. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was '57? 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: In '57, I came out, then I went 

7 into private practice. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So private practice started 

9 then. 

10 DR. DEL JUNCO: And it was solely in private 

11 practice, and it was like ten years later when I became 

12 involved -- 

13 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You started your own firm? 

14 DR. DEL JUNCO: My own office. I've always been 

15 by myself. I've never had a salary. I've never had a contract 

16 from anybody. I don't have Medi-Cal contracts. 

17 Even -- everybody thinks because I've been 

18 involved in politics -- 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you mean, you don't 

20 have Medi-Cal contracts? 

21 DR. DEL JUNCO: I don't have. I take Medi-Cal 

22 patients. 

2 3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Oh, you do? 

24 DR. DEL JUNCO: Of course, but I don't — you 

25 know, there is capitations, contracts, and there's a number of 

26 contracts that doctors have. I don't even have any of those. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, from '57 or 8, you were in 

28 you private practice? 



DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What we see is '66 to present 
as physician and President of Tirso Del Junco, M.D., 

Is that a later phase? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Well, that's an excellent 

What happened was this. I became involved in the 
first race for Governor Ronald Reagan. When he got elected, I 
was appointed Member of the Board of Medical Examiners. 

It was at that time that professional 
corporations were approved. The Board of Medical Examiners was 
ordered to come up with the regulatory process to cover 
professional corporations. 

Subsequent to that -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's when you incorporated? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I incorporated my practice. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But your practice existed in 
the years before that. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just not incorporated. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: It was not possible in the State 
of California to incorporate until 19 -- I'm going to say 
something like '68 or '67. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's when you did that. 

Medical officer Cuban Army of Liberation, '61. 
Did you leave your medical practice then? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Well, I never thought that it was 


1 going to come out at this hearing, but I did. Many of my 

2 professors, and many of the people who had gone to the Olympic 

3 Games with me, representing Cuba, way back in 1949, were 

4 involved in the Cuban Army of Liberation, 

5 My professors called me and asked me would I join 

6 them. And I was one of the surgeons that was going to the Bay 

7 of Pigs invasion. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : Did you go, or just in 

9 Florida? 

10 DR. DEL JUNCO: I was in Florida and cancelled on 

11 Wednesday afternoon, when President Kennedy cancelled the 

12 invasion. Then I returned to practice, but I did close my 

13 office for that purpose. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you went, but just for a 

15 brief time. 

16 DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a similar sort of 

18 diplomatic, I guess would be the word, diplomatic experience 

19 with respect to Nicaragua? 

20 DR. DEL JUNCO: There is in the Catholic Church 

21 an organization called the Knights of Malta. And I am a member 

22 of the Knights of Malta and have been for many, many years. 

23 The Knights of Malta has embassies all over the 

24 world. And I was designated as an ambassador to Nicaragua, and 

25 I represented that until the downfall and the Marxist takeover. 

26 Then I resigned as ambassador because it was very difficult for 

27 me. 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You were there prior to the 



DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. When the 
Santanistas came into office, I felt that I could not sustain 

CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: What did you do as a Knight? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I would raise funds, you know, 
particularly -- by the way, we have a hospitality organization. 
We are primarily involved in Germany and in France and here with 
hospital care. 

There's a military portion of that, all the 
soldiers of the Vatican belong to the Knights of Malta. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was another one of your 
community services. 

I don't want' to debate the affirmative action 
philosophy. I think we all know what our respective positions 
are there. 

But I do appreciate hearing you comment a little 
on just how it evolved. When did the issue first come to your 
attention? I know the conclusion is July 20th, 1995. That was 
when the vote occurred. So, two years ago, basically, was 
when -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, I have a very great 
personal conflicts concerning this matter, and it dates much 
before that. 

I'm married to a Mexican young woman then. My 
wife is of Mexican ancestry. I'm of Cuban ancestry. 

When the moment came for my children to go to 
college, it was obvious that if they say I'm Mexican-American, 

I 122 

1 at UCLA they will be treated one way. If they say I'm 

2 Cuban-American, it was treated another way. 

3 As it turned out to be, I sent to my two sons to 

4 go to college in Guadalajara, because I didn't want to use my 

5 influence in talking about special treatment and so on. And all 

6 went to Guadalajara. 

"7 But we have dealt with that question. I have 14 

8 grandchildren, some of them that are Mexican-Americans and 

9 Cuban-Americans. 

10 And I cannot in good faith vote for a process 

11 that separates our family. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

13 Doctor, I may not have asked you carefully 

14 enough. 

15 On July 20th, there was this vote before the 

16 Board of Regents. I assume there was a lot of discussion in the 

17 couple of weeks, I guess, before that, or maybe a couple of 

18 meetings before that. 

19 I was just hoping you would help explain what was 

20 the background, other than the philosophy that you mentioned in 

21 your own personal experience? When did it first come up? Was 

22 it a year ahead? 

23 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes, it was a year before. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, about a year. 

25 DR. DEL JUNCO: About a year, and then President 

26 Pulderson is the one that ordered reports, and we were getting, 

27 almost on a monthly, basis reports about how this issue was 

28 being handled, and reports of — concerning more specifically 


the issues of racial participation. 

I kept asking this question about 
Mexican-American versus Latinos, what is the difference between 
a Chicano and Latino. 

Finally, I think it was in the month of May that 
I knew the answer that was being denied. In the month of May 
they say, yes, it is true. There is a differential between a 
Chicano and from Nicaragua. 

Senator, I just cannot accept that a kid sitting 
in East Los Angeles of Nicaraguan families is going to be 
treated different than the same poor child of a Mexican family. 
I do not believe that morally I can live with that. 

And this is why I voted the way. Nobody asked 
me to vote the way I did. 

And if I made a mistake, it's my mistake. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No one asked you? No other 
Regent ever talked to you about it? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: No. What I'm trying to say is, 
nobody asked me to vote this way. And I say that because it's 
been alleged that I was following the guidelines set by Governor 
Pete Wilson. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You didn't care what his 
opinion was? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Of course I do, but it was not 
his opinion that really made me make the final decision of 
voting one way or another. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask you to reconcile 
these acts or comments. 


1 July 20th, '95, is the meeting of the Regents 

2 where you adopt the new policy on affirmative action, or 

3 eliminate that. 

4 Now it turns out exactly the same day, July 20th, 

5 '96, there's an article in the Cleveland, Ohio newspaper. Now, 

6 those are not uncommon. They're in the Washington Post , the 
1 L.A. Times , other places, commenting or reporting on the fact 

8 that, as an officer in the Postal Service, that you had at 

9 various times expressed the view that African-Americans were 

10 over-represented on the Postal Service, and that Hispanics were 

11 under-represented. 

12 And you say in the Cleveland paper, "These 

13 people," meaning blacks, "they're now doing to the Hispanics 

14 what the whites did to them." 

15 Now, I don't want to get into a lot of collateral 

16 debates about the Postal Service or whatever, but it just seems 

17 to me to be difficult to understand how, on one day, when you're 

18 voting to eliminate race-conscious admissions and employment 

19 policies at UC, you're wanting to have race factored into 

20 employment at the Postal Service. 

21 Am I missing something? 

22 DR. DEL JUNCO: I think you are. Senator. 

23 ' CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell me what it is. 

24 DR. DEL JUNCO: The issue of discrimination, the 

25 issue is an open policy. The issue is an opportunity for 
2 6 everybody. 

27 Right now, I have a study on the Postal Service 

28 that we're paying $850,000 to address this issue. The blacks 


might have 64 percent of the employment in Los 7\Jigeles, but they 
only have 3 percent of procurement. Is that fair? 

Now, because I voted against or in favor of 209, 
am I now, I have to commit myself to allowing for that 
discrimination against the blacks? 

My point -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, wait. You're twisting it 
around. You're condemning race-conscious policies at UC, while 
you are urging the same kinds of policies in the Postal Service. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I am not urging a policy of that 
kind. What I am urging is an open process, access to the 

This is the whole problem, that because you are 
against racially driven priorities, you know, that you now have 
to accept every bit of discrimination down the line. 

I think we got to stand loud and clear against 
the discriminations that exist all over this country. . 

However, having said that, that does not mean 
that I'm endorsing any procedures and methods that are driven 
exclusively by race. If that's the case, in this particular 
newspaper that talked about it, and they called me. 

I believe that you have to have an open policy in 
Los Angeles where there's more than 50 percent of the Hispanics. 
That doesn't mean I'm closing the doors on blacks. Whoever 
interprets it that way is doing me a very, very disservice. 

I am for an open policy of employment and 
procurement, as well as job improvement. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It does seem to -- 


1 DR. DEL JUNCO: I'm sorry, but I see your point, 

2 Senator. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : You're saying that there is 

4 evidence of blacks discriminating against both Hispanics and 

5 whites in the Postal Service? 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: I'll say this, why I made that 

7 statement. And that statement, in my opinion, has been, again, 

8 misinterpreted. 

9 The point is that there are some Post Offices in 

10 which an individual who happens to be black, he controls the 

11 admission process to the working place. Therefore, he plays 

12 favoritism. 

13 In this particular case, the guys who are at risk 

14 happen to be Hispanics, like in Los Angeles, where only 16 

15 percent of the employees are Hispanics. 

16 Now, does that mean you're going to fire a black? 

17 Does that mean that you're going to do anything about the 

18 blacks? Absolutely not. I think that the blacks have done a 

19 great service to the U.S. Postal Service. And the history of 

20 service goes back 50 years. 

21 Now, that does not mean that we don't have to 

22 have an even playing field for everybody. It's very hard to 

23 articulate this, and I've been trying to articulate it for a 

24 long, long time. 

25 And my policy is an even playing field for 
2 6 everybody. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me move on. I think I 

28 understand your philosophy. It's hard to square with all the 



public comments. 

You mentioned to us that your view about shared 
governance means you have to consult but not necessarily agree 
with the faculty, and so on. 

Now, would you tell me how that idea squares with 
the Regents policy, that is, what I understand is called 
Standing Order 105? I guess you have to stand to talk about 
this order. 

The order is, the Academic Senate shall determine 
the conditions for admission, for certificates, and for degrees 
other than honorary degrees. 

It doesn't qualify it. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Because that is a delegation of 
the Board of Regents to the President, and the President has 
delegated that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In effect, you took it back? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

Let me also say on shared governance, that almost 
99 percent of the time, you know, the shared governance is 
exactly what it is says. 

. CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That you do agree. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That we do agree, and we go the 
extra mile to agree. In fact, if you go back over the last 10 
years, there is not too many occasions where there has been a 
disagreement. I think it should be that way, by the way. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've got a dozen years in 
serving as a Regent. How many presidents did you see, four? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes, Gardener -- three. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Three presidents. 

2 Would you rank one as superior, you know, the 

3 most outstanding of the three? 

4 DR. DEL JUNCO: That would be extremely 

6 difficult, because, you know, I have an excellent President 

6 right now, and he's doing an outstanding job. And everyone 

7 within his own parameters, I think, have done a great service to 

8 the University of California. 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There seems to be the opinion 

10 often expressed that the last couple of years has been divisive 

11 and controversial around the University. 

12 Is there in your view, looking back, anything 

13 that could or should have been done to try to avoid some of the 

14 controversies, or handle them differently? 

15 DR. DEL JUNCO: You know, going back to, I think, 

16 what Senator Ayala was talking about, about this question about 

17 fees and all the rest. Certainly the issue of fee among 

18 students created a great controversy. Here is the faculty 

19 agreeing with the Regents to do that. 

20 The budget crisis, which brought about the 

21 resignation of some very, very senior, outstanding professors. 

22 This all brought about a tremendous constraint, 

23 the $300 million of cuts that had to be taking place. This 

24 created a tremendous amount of conflict. This issue come before 

25 the Board. The Board became divided. 

26 Then finally came this issue of SP 1, SP 2, which 

27 I think was the final blow to the whole thing. 

28 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What could we have done 


different, anything? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Well, I'll answer that with a 

What could we have done different so the state 
would have not gone through the budget crisis that we went 
through four, five years ago? 

I think if you go back, the whole thing emanates 
from there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any last comments, questions 
from Members? Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm intrigued by your Postal 
Service. I think you found out some very interesting 
information in that. 

Are you encouraging members of the Hispanic 
community to apply for Postal jobs? 

I notice that in that report that you received, 
the reason that many of them were disqualified, because of lack 
of fluency in English. TVnd especially, I think a postal job is 
a very difficult one, even reading the poor handwriting. It's a 
wonder any of us get our mail. .. 

But, you know, what are you doing on that score, 
because you are concerned that not enough Hispanics hold the 
jobs in the Post Office? And then you serve on that commission 
until the year 2000. 

Tell me what you're doing to see that they apply 
for those jobs. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, I think that the best 
person to answer that question is the Postmaster of the Los 


1 Angeles that is here. 

2 SENATOR HUGHES: No, I don't want him to answer, 

3 because he's not up for confirmation. You are. 

A DR. DEL JUNCO: But you see, he is the one who's 

5 implementing all those rules of outreach. It's nothing else but 

6 outreach, going out there and publicizing. 

7 In fact, he was going to testify today about that 

8 issue. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: Let me tell you the reason that 

10 a lot of blacks got into the Post Office, because that's one 

11 place that they accepted them for employment. 

12 DR. DEL JUNCO: I am aware of this. 

13 SENATOR HUGHES: It started basically in 

14 Washington, D.C. because the black population was large in that 

15 city. 

16 TVnd so, if you see someone who is successful, 

17 then you try to follow in their footsteps. 

18 So, I would imagine that many Hispanic students 

19 will try to go to medical school because they know of Dr. del 
2 Junco . 

21 DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely. 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: Who is a very prominent 

23 physician in their community. 

24 So, it's role modeling, right? 

2 5 DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, the example of the 

26 blacks in the Post Office is extraordinary. That's all I can 

27 tell you, and is an example, for the Hispanics must take and 

28 must apply themselves, be assertive, take the examinations and 


follow through. 

However, I want that open door policy for 
everybody. I'm going to tell you, I'm going to discourage with 
a piece of the action that the blacks are getting when it comes 
to procurement in Los Angeles, very bad. 

SENATOR HUGHES: A piece of the action that 
they're qualified to get. They're not getting a piece of the 
action because anybody gave them a gift. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: It isn't a question of giving. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And let me tell you another 
things. Many of those blacks who historically served in the 
Post Office were college graduates. Many of the blacks who 
became pullman porters were college graduates. And they got 
these jobs because they were over-qualified. 

I just give you that information because I'm sure 
you don't have it. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Let me just — I did not — you 
misinterpreted my question. Senator. 

Please, I am talking about procurement. I am not 
talking about jobs. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm talking about procurement, 
to the businesses that provide goods and services. Not all of 
the blacks have those. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: But my point to you is that we 
who are in position of authority must see that those 
procurements must be put out to bid, and legitimate bids, and we 
have to look at the process. That's what I'm talking about. 

Many of those contracts have been in place for 

I 132 

1 years and years. They've not been put out to bid. That's what 

2 I'm talking about. 

3 Yet, when I make that presentation, people think 

4 that I am fighting these people. I'm not. What I'm trying to 

5 do is to help. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's amazing, because Richard 

7 Polanco probably has his contracting with small and 

8 minority-owned and women-owned businesses at the top his list. 

9 And for you two not to be tracking is sort of -- 

10 DR. DEL JUNCO: And this is my position. I have 

11 currently a study going on there, U.S. Postal Service in Los 

12 Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, Texas, that addresses this very issue, 

13 because the future of these minorities is to have access. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's irrelevant to your 

15 circumstance, but we were benefitted in Alameda County by Lionel 

16 Wilson's serving on the Superior Court for a long time, and when 

17 he retired. Mayor of Oakland. 

18 He became a lawyer because he couldn't get a job 

19 in the Post Office because of the discrimination against blacks 

20 at that time. So he said, well, I can't get a job there; I'm 

21 going to go to law school. 

22 Of course, he wound up being a judge and lots of 

23 fine things. Unrelated. 

24 Let me ask you, coming up next meeting, domestic 

25 partnerships is on the agenda at the Regents. Do you have any 

26 settled opinion about the -issue? 

27 DR. DEL JUNCO: It's coming up again. It's been 

28 put on the agenda. It's a controversial issue. 



I'm going to hear everybody. The Lieutenant 
Governor has requested that in this presentation there will be 
the economic factors be put on the table. 

I personally want to hear everybody out. This is 
a very controversial issue, I don't mind telling you, that if 
we're going to go this route -- 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: I'm asking because I'm trying 
to find on the what direction you're going to go? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: My direction is going to be, if 
we're going to go the direction, we are going to open it up for 
both heterosexuals, and same sex, and for everybody. I want to 
see the factors. I want to see the economic impact on the 

CPiAIRMTVN LOCKYER: Mostly, Doctor, I understand 
that it's mostly elderly single people that are male, female. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That wind up living together 
and losing health benefits. It's not so much gay and lesbian. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's exactly right. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: And you're talking about both. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But no settled opinion yet? 
Are you still listening -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: No, but I have a strong, you 
know, of course, if this becomes extremely costly for the 
University, and have a tremendous fiduciary fiscal impact on the 
University — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think it will be 


1 costly? 

2 DR. DEL JUNCO: This is why the Lieutenant 

3 Governor has asked for the report. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The UCSF-Stanf ord merger. 

5 Separate from -- 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: You said it already, made your 

7 prediction. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I'm only reading the tea 

9 leaves. I'm not recommending it or anything. 

10 But I want to ask about the votes on this new 

11 board. There's seven and seven, basically. Seven from UC, 

12 seven from Stanford, then there's three independents? 

13 DR. DEL JUNCO: Yes. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: One, I guess, has been 

15 appointed, Mr. Helman. Now, who is he? 

16 DR. DEL JUNCO: Mr. Helman is a senior partner 

17 of a very, very prominent firm, a security firm, investment 

18 firm, who was asked by the President to do an independent 

19 study. There's some questions -- in that independent study 

20 there's a question. 

21 Let me just say to you that I have been the 

22 person who have spoke repeatedly about the issue of governance. 

23 And when I talk about governance, I'm talking about the presence 

24 of Regents in it. 

25 There's only three Regents present. However, 

26 more important than that, we have an executive committee which 

27 is very, very powerful in that organization who has been 

28 delegated tremendous amount of responsibility. And there's only 


one Regent. 

In fact, I complained about it, and they made him 
the chairman of the executive committee. 

But the Stanford has a controlling in that. They 
tell me they're going to change that. 

SO/ I am concerned about that. I am also 
concerned about the -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: On the executive committee? 


I am concerned of the public records issue, the 
disclosure. What kind of information are the Regents going to 
receive? Are they going to be able to have a privilege to 
anything and everything? 

I think the Board of Regents should have access 
to every bit of information because they're 50 percent partners 
on this issue. 

I also want to find out, because we're going to 
lease our employees to this institution, what are risk factors 
for us? 

You know, I'm the person who asks all these 
questions. And I'm the person who brings these questions to the 

Now, when the vote was taken to proceed in 
developing this whole program, yes, I voted for it. After all, 
I'm not an obstructionist. But I want you to know that I am 
going to wait for the presentation. 

We're going to have a presentation in the month 
of July — in the month of September -- and probably there will 


1 be a vote taken. But it's going to be -- in effect, I'm going 

2 to do what is best for the University. 

3 The medical schools are state. This is the -- 

4 our medical school in San Francisco is a pre-eminent medical 

5 school with an R&D, research and development, that is second to 

6 none in the country. And I will -- I want to find out what's 

7 going to happen to that research. I want to happen -- I want to 

8 know what's going to happen to that intellectual property. 

9 Where is it going? We've had intellectual 

10 property and research going on the ginny, and you know, now for 

11 15 years. Are we just giving it away? 

12 These are the questions that I'm asking. 

13 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Those are good questions. 

14 Now, last fall, the Audit Committee conducted a 

15 discussion of the issue. I guess the chief counsel subsequently 

16 ruled that it was a violation of the Brown Act, that it should 

17 have been open to the public and was not. 

18 At least the student Regent believes that you 

19 were antagonistic to his disclosure that the meeting was 

20 conducted and conducted illegally. And his quote is that you 

21 told him that there was some feeling that he should be made to 

22 resign from the Board because his actions in exposing the 

23 illegal meeting had embarrassed the Board. 

24 Is that accurate? 

25 DR. DEL JUNCO: That is true, what he's telling 
2 6 you . 

27 I got a phone call from two Regents. I was 

28 upset — 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This wasn't your own view? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: No, I mean, but I want you to 
know that I was upset with him because, a, he knew that counsel 
had been asked, and counsel had erroneously advised the Board. 

But I was upset because I felt that as the 
Chairman of the Board, he should have come and talked to me, and 
tell me. Doctor, I think that is an abuse, or whatever. 

If I had failed to make a decision, then he 
should have proceeded. Instead of doing that, he went to the 
press. I felt that he violated a principle of communication. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that why he wasn't on the 
committee to select -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely not. 

The reason that I did not select him is because 
as a result of this whole friction, you know, he had access to 
all the students. He had access to all the members that were 
being proposed. And I felt that he did not bring anything to 
the table constructive. 

And I was trying -- it's just like when I 
appointed my search committees in Berkeley. I appointed a 
search committee that I thought it was going to do the best. I 
think that I told you that I was accused that I was trying to 
stack the committee. And I wanted to stack it so much, that 
Chancellor Bardow, who is a very strong anti-SP 1, SP 2, was 
selected. And the same thing happened down in UCLA, which is 
really, I think, speaks to my fairness as I manage -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't think you'd find a 
serious academic in the country that didn't disagree with the 


1 Board on that. 

2 DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you get some credit, but 

4 you would have had to hire me. No, I guess I disagree, too. 

5 You don't get a lot of credit -- 

6 DR. DEL JUNCO: The issue never came up in the 

7 discussion, never was discussed, and it was never an 

8 issue. 


10 DR. DEL JUNCO: We were selecting the best man 

11 for that Institution. 

12 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good, or woman, as Senator 

13 Hughes would like to amend that. 

14 DR. DEL JUNCO: And we considered a lot of women, 

15 too. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: A lot of women? 

17 DR. DEL JUNCO: We considered a lot of women for 

18 that job, too. 

19 SENATOR HUGHES: A proportional share. 

2 DR. DEL JUNCO: Of course, and rightfully so. 

21 SENATOR HUGHES: May I ask, recently Ward 

22 Connerly suggested that we should pursue race-based outreach 

23 programs in order to bring some minority applicants to UC. 

24 Do you agree with him on that? What's your 

25 opinion of this suggestion? 

2 6 DR. DEL JUNCO: I believe that we should go out 

27 and be advocates. I believe that we should try to recruit. 

28 But I do not believe it should be driven by race. 


I think we can go down to Southeast Los Angeles and recruit to 
whatever is there. If they happen to be black -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: There will be Hispanics if you 
go to Southeast Los Angeles because that's the population. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Or South Central - 

SENATOR HUGHES: And that's Hispanic. You have 
to count -- like the Drew School -- 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Which is 75 percent patients are 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's right. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, my point is that I do 
not believe it should be driven by race. It should be driven by 
needs . 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you disagree with Regent 

DR. DEL JUNCO: If that's the case. 

SENATOR HUGHES: On what he is suggesting? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: I don't know if he suggested that 
or not. I don't want to put words in his mouth. 

I believe that we can go into those districts, in 
those communities, improve the standard of education, bring more 
funds, recruit mentors, regardless of who's there. Does not 
have to be driven by race. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Economic circumstances? 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Absolutely, very important. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, that would be more inclusive 
than exclusive. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: That's right. 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we may have 

2 concluded. I'm not sure. Let me just take care of this 

3 business. 

4 Mr. Parsky and Preuss, this is taking longer than 

5 expected. You may have noticed that both yourselves. 

6 We're wondering what to do about it in terms of 

7 scheduling. I guess if the gentlemen were able to stay here 

8 this evening, we could meet first thing in the morning, if it 

9 worked with people's schedules. Or, we could meet later in the 

10 week. 

11 I know you're both going to be out of the country 

12 at different times in the next 30 days. I think I've run past 

13 the attention span of myself. 

14 MR. PARSKY: Senator, I certainly will be here 

15 when asked. 

16 CHAIRM7W LOCKYER: Does the morning work? 

17 MR. PARSKY: Tomorrow morning would work, yes. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If there are perhaps 

19 witnesses, we can hear from them tonight briefly before, so that 

20 they can leave. Then have the two of you with us in the 

21 morning, if that works. I hope that would accommodate. 

22 We didn't, frankly, think this would take as long 

23 as it has. But we have found that Dr. del Junco is wordy. Is 

24 he that way in the Regents meetings, too, Mr. Brophy? Is he 

25 that engaged as he has been here in the Regents meetings? 

26 MR. BROPHY: He's always enthusiastic, yes. 

27 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Okay, I think we've concluded. 

28 Thank you for your time. 


Frankly, I guess perhaps by way of summation, I 
will simply say that you're a very engaging person. And I think 
we've had an opportunity to get a good look and feel for your 
personality, philosophy, and experience. 

I haven't reached any conclusion personally, and 
we're not intending to vote today. We're going to just take all 
the testimony today, and now some tomorrow, I guess. 

But you've acquitted yourself well. I'm not sure 
if anyone landed a punch, but if they did, you were able to keep 
standing and keep punching back. 

So, thank you very much, Doctor, for your time 
with us. 

DR. DEL JUNCO: Senator, I want to thank you, and 
I want to thank all your colleagues. Certainly, your courtesy 
is extremely appreciated. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. We'll 
continue to talk. Good luck. 

Okay, I want to make sure I get any witnesses 
that would wish, like Senator Killea. 

MR. BROPHY: I'm just going to say they're both 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, Brophy's going to 
say you're both okay. You can leave, unless you want to add 
something additional, Regents. 

MR. BROPHY: This will be two minutes and no more 
for me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I want to make sure anyone who 
can't be here tomorrow will have an opportunity. 


1 Senator. 

2 SENATOR KILLEA: Thank you. This is my first 

3 appearance back here, and I only came back because I did have a 

4 purpose. 

5 I think, as most of you know, that I don't speak 

6 unless I have something to say, so this is my situation today. 

7 Actually, as the Chairman knows, and I think 

8 maybe some of the other Members, I am a very intense and 

9 persistent advocate for higher education. And certainly that 

10 has not changed. In fact, I'm on the California Citizens 

11 Commission for Higher Education, along with, co-chaired by 

12 Harold Williams, a former distinguished Regent, and John 

13 Slaughter, the President of Occidental. 

14 But to speak for Peter Preuss today, I have known 

15 him personally for some years now. It's primarily through- UCSD 

16 and through the Alumni Association, and have a great deal of 

17 respect for his veracity and integrity. I think he is an 

18 outstanding person, and he is very anxious to see the University 

19 do its best to educate all of the students who come to the 

20 University. 

21 I think I can say without any hesitation that he 

22 is -- that I can have my trust and confidence in him as a UC 

23 Regent. 

2 4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many years have you known 

25 him? 

2 6 SENATOR KILLEA: About eight or nine, something 

27 like that. 

28 SENATOR AYALA: Which one are you speaking 



SENATOR KILLEA: Peter Preuss, and I don't know 
the other gentleman personally, but I do know Peter, and he's 
been a very important part of our San Diego community. Always 
seems to be in there, pitching for important projects that 
benefit the people of the city, as well as particularly the 
students at UCSD. He's been very active there. 

Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. It's nice to have 
you back. 

SENATOR KILLEA: It's nice to be here. I'll see 
you again some day. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Roy, do you want to add 

MR. BROPHY: Well, what the Senator said was my 
viewS/ too. Obviously, and I've known him about probably five 
years. He served two years as an alumni Regent. 

He brings to the Board, and I'll be saying the 
same thing in a different area for the other candidate, he 
brings to Board special expertise. He's been -- he's given 
money, and he's worked in hospitals, worked in the management 
and worked in the administration as a board members. 

Right now it's something we critically need. We 
need strong voices to offset what I think may be a great 
disaster if we go ahead and form this merger. 

But hospitals themselves, Irvine is no exception 
with the egg transplants, we're having nothing but more 
problems, although we're the largest, more problems than we 


1 deserve. 

2 But Peter Preuss is an excellent advocate and a 

3 very acknowledgeable person in that area. I would appreciate 

4 that. 

5 Mr. Parsky is a very special person in another 

6 area. As you probably know, the Treasurer's office handles 

7 about $40 billion in funds. And the $40 billion is handled by 

8 the Treasurer, who reports to the Regents. 

9 It's been an area of concern to me. I've been 

10 Finance Chairman my second year now. I was Chairman of the 

11 Board before. 

12 But since he's come aboard, he's formed an 

13 oversight committee of Regents. He is the most acknowledgeable. 

14 We've lost Harold Williams, as the Senator just said. We lost 

15 Dean as well. But we don't have anybody that has the kind of 

16 expertise, and believe me, I'm telling the truth, as Parsky. 

17 That's his business, and we need somebody that can provide 

18 oversight with the Regents as the only boss. Unless someone has 

19 an oversight committee, they got a pretty easy boss. And it's a 

20 fearsome project. 

21 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is the investment fund? 

22 MR. BROPHY: Yes, the funds, and it includes all 

23 of the retirement funds for all of the 180,000 some employees, 

24 as well as the monies that they put in additional funds that 

25 people put in that work for the University because they know of 

26 the high return that the Treasurer's office has been able to 

27 achieve. 

28 That's all that I have to say. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Brophy. 

I notice Senators Alpert and I believe Peace. 
They can come back tomorrow. You can do it now if you 



MS. MONTOYA: I feel like I'm echoing Regent 
Brophy, but it's true. 

I'd like to speak for Regent Preuss's 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You'll probably have to 
identify yourself again. 

MS. MONTOYA: I'm Regent Thelma Montoya of the 
the University of California. 

I particularly wish to share with you my 
enthusiasm for Regent Preuss's enthusiasm, in particular these 
days for charter schools, which are becoming a big issue as a 
means of enabling the University of California and others to 
enhance the education in the K-12 systems. 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: It got to be a mess in San 

MS. MONTOYA: But he's going to fix it, it's my 
understanding, or he's part of the fix. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He ' s a man of many 
enthusiasms . 

MS. MONTOYA: Exactly, but apparently he gets 
them done, at least that's what I see. 

I definitely echo Regent Brophy with respect to 


1 Regent Parsky's expertise in the investment area, I'm one of 

2 the those on the Investment Advisory Group. Recently, your 

3 constituent is the Chair of that group, David Lee. 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER': His business is a constituent, 

5 but his home, he lives in some fancy place in, I think. Senator 

6 Sher's district. 

7 But we're friends. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean he did a bad job with 

9 the Investment Committee that we needed Mr. Parsky to straighten 

10 it out? 

11 MS. MONTOYA: No, no, no. Regent Lee created 

12 this oversight group. We have a new Treasurer, and we have 

13 new -- a new person to articulate the concerns. And this 

14 investment group is helping articulate the concerns. 

15 And Regent Parsky is particularly helpful, of. 

16 course, in the area of venture capital. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. 

18 Other comment? And I guess we're going to meet 

19 at 9:00 A.M. in this room. 

20 Other people who would rather get on the record 

21 now. 

22 MR. PERRY: It'll be very brief. 

23 I'm Hayden Perry. I'm a member of the Gray 

24 Panthers. 

25 You're suggesting changes in the construction of 

26 the committee. 

27 I think one .important thing, it was set up very 

28 early in California's history, and a major part of its 


1 membership were ex-officio people. If you were Vice President, 

2 or Vice Governor, you would be automatically on the Board. I 

3 don't know just how many of that is, but that doesn't seem very 

4 democratic to begin with. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER : There's 26 of them, and six or 

6 seven are ex-officios. 

7 MR. PERRY: And the others are appointed. 

8 I certainly think that among those should be the 

9 Chancellors of each campus should be represented directly, 

10 because they're the ones who are affected most. 

11 I think most important, though, is the fact their 

12 12-year appointment is far too long. Now they're going to 

13 reappoint this present individual. He will have served 24 

14 years. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, he only gets three more. 

16 MR. PERRY: He only gets three more. 

17 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, 15 years. 

18 MR. PERRY: Even 15 years. Let's start at 6 

19 years as a maximum. That's almost any post is no more than 6 

20 years, so let's start right there with that. 


22 MS. GONZALES: Senator Lockyer, my name is Alice 

23 Gonzales. I think I've been before this Board on three or four 

24 occasions. 

25 And I had not intended to come up and speak 

26 today, but in light of all that has been said and my 

27 observations of what has been said or not been said, I wanted to 

28 share with you and with the Members of the Rules Committee how I 


1 feel, and who should serve on the Board, who should be Regents. 

2 The qualifications for that individual, and what that person is 

3 going to bring to the Board. 

4 I think that all of the Regents, each unto his 

5 own, brings a certain expertise and a life experience. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're not wanting for business 
1 experience, however. 

8 MS. GONZALES: And that experience should be — 

9 and be brought to the Board by the advantages it may bring to 

10 the system as a whole. 

11 Now, I don't socialize with the Board of Regents 

12 or their members, nor do they socialize and come to my home. We 

13 just happen to be together on a Board that is there to serve a 

14 purpose. 

15 My bottom line has always been the students. 

16 That's our product. That's what we should be concerned about. 

17 But members of the Board do have, and I'm 

18 speaking for your consideration and those members today, is that 

19 because of who they are, that's how I view them, what they are 

20 and what they bring to that Board. 

21 I can see -- and I think Roy Brophy mentioned 

22 Mr. Parsky and what he brings to the Board. 

23 And I was on the Nominating Committee and asked 

24 Mr. Parsky to be on that Audit Committee. And my reason for 

25 that was because of his expertise. I have full faith and trust 

26 that he knows what he's doing. I really don't. 

27 When it comes to the management of that large 

28 trust that is ours, the people of the State of California, I 


1 think we need to have someone there who knows what's happening, 

2 and can question not only the President and his staff, but also 

3 our Treasurer and her staff, and what it's all about. 

4 I've seen Gerry perform. 

5 I don't know why I'm nervous, I've been here 

6 before, and I'm not coming back. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm trying to move us along. 

8 MS. GONZALES: And with Peter, I've sat next to 

9 Peter now -- well, next to Gerry and Peter. They're -- one sits 

10 on one side of me, and one on the other. And I've watched Peter 

11 not only had he was an alumni, and his contribution. And I know 

12 what his contribution has been to the UCSF Hospital, and San 

13 Diego, the University as a whole, but also his concern with the 

14 charter schools and bringing kids in from the urban areas to 

15 that. 

16 So, I can tell you, he's a contributor not 

17 because he wanted to get one of his children into school. He 

18 only has one, and he's going to USC. 

19 So, I just wanted to tell you -- 

.20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We can't blame him for the bad 

21 choices of his kid, I guess. 

22 MS. GONZALES: You can't. You have to look at 

23 their qualifications. You have their backgrounds. You know who 

24 they are, so that's the only thing I can say, is judge them by 

25 their qualifications and what they may bring. 

26 And thank you. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

28 MS. SABATINI: Unfortunately, I cannot wait 


1 until tomorrow. I flew up from San Diego this morning and need 

2 to be flying back tonight. 

3 My name is Coleen Sabatini, and as of one week 

4 and two days ago, I am an alumni or alumna of the University of 

5 California. I graduated from UCSD on June 14th with a Bachelor 

6 of Science Degree in Ecology, Behavior and Evolutionary Biology. 

7 I am here today to speak about my experience 

8 working this past year with Peter Preuss through my position as 

9 the 1996-97 UCSD Undergraduate Student Body President. 

10 Although I have known Peter Preuss for a few 

11 years now, our working relationship really began a year ago, 

12 when he was appointed to the Board of Regents. I believe it was 

13 just few days later when he became the first and only Regent to 

14 call the Student Presidents at UCSD to request a meeting with 

15 us. 

16 Regent Preuss, myself, and the Graduate Student 

17 President met to discuss undergraduate and graduate education, 

18 student issues and concerns, and the goals the three of us could 

19 work to achieve together. This was all initiated by him. 

20 Since that time, I have been continuously amazed 

21 at the dedication this individual has to the University of 

22 California and the people of this state. His passion for 

23 serving others and improving the University of California's 

24 connection to the California people is exemplified by his 

25 participation in a large number of diverse activities and 

26 organizations. 

27 A few brief examples include a participation in 

28 the UC outreach efforts, the UCSD Connect Program, the UCSD 


1 Cancer Board, and his active participation with the UC Alumni 

2 Association where he strives to create a strong alumni support 

3 network and encourages UC graduates to be more active 

4 participants in their communities. 

5 I have met with Peter Preuss several times over 

6 the last year. His interest and concern for undergraduate 

7 issues has been unparalleled by other members of the Board of 

8 Regents. 

9 Although he and I do not agree on every aspect of 

10 all issues, I appreciate, as others do, Regent Preuss 's 

11 dedication to fully educating himself about issues and 

12 formulating a well thought out opinion. He does not accept 

13 ideas or decisions complaisantly . Instead, he actively 

14 participates in discussion, conducts his own research, and 

15 formulates an opinion grounded in intelligent discourse and 

16 commitment to the people of this state. 

17 As a student, I appreciate Regent Preuss 's 

18 attention to the quality of UC education and our future 

19 prospects as alumns. 

20 As a Californian, I greatly appreciate his 

21 commitment to making the University responsive to the needs of 

22 our communities and work in the best interests of the great 

23 people of this state. 

24 I endorse the confirmation of Peter Preuss as 

25 Regent of the University of California. I look forward to the 

26 opportunity, with your confirmation, to continue our discussions 

27 on the future of the University and its role in the state, with 

28 Peter Preuss as Regent, and I as a tax paying citizen of the 


1 State of California and the alumn of a great university. 

2 Thank you for your attention. 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. Other 

4 questions. 

5 Next, please. 

6 MS. DELANEY: My name is Nancy Delaney, and I'm 

7 with the Committee for a Responsible University. 

8 I might be wrong, but I believe that both Dr. 

9 Preuss and Mr. Parsky voted for this UCSF merger. 

10 I would just like to raise a few issues, one 

11 being health care for poor. I believe that I know that people 

12 who are homeless, or who are uninsured now go to the UCSF 

13 Medical Facility. They will not have that access. 

14 Union jobs will be lost. Public monies, where 

15 are they going, and who's going to be getting the money that has 

16 been built up there? And most importantly, public trust. 

17 And so, although Dr. Preuss seems like as an 

18 individual much more responsible person than I've heard usually 

19 recommended for the Regents, I think he voted also for the UCSF 

20 give-away of the public trust, and that makes me question his 

21 interest. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The votes were 14-2, and your 

23 point is a good one. We'll talk with them both about it. 

24 MS. DELANEY: It's especially the health care for 

25 the poor. 

2 6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Bravin and Montoya were the 

27 two that voted no. 

28 MS. DELANEY: Montoya and who else? 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Bravin, the student rep. 

MS. DELANEY: I really appreciate their votes for 


Any more comment at all? 

Sorry for inconvenience. It's night in 
Sacramento, you'll have a lot of fun. Just be careful when they 
roll up the street that you're not on it. 

We'll wrap it tomorrow morning. Thank you both. 
We've still got other business to do tonight. So we'll keep 
moving, but thank you very much. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 5:45 P.M.] 








I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
'/^i' day of V )t.LJU_ , 1997. 

lorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $5.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 333-R when ordering. 


JUL 1 7 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1997 
1:55 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1997 
1:55 P.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






California Integrated Waste Management Board 


California Integrated Waste Management Board 


• Page 
Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 


California Integrated Waste Management Board 1 

Background 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Expiration of Term 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Hardest Issues 2 

Progress on Meeting 939 Goals 4 

Possible Influence of Cal-EPA over 

Board Decisions 4 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Vote against SB 451 (Watson) 5 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Use of Desert Areas for Waste 

Disposal Sites 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Board's Ability to Veto Proposed Sites 7 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Proposed Sites in Desert 7 

Local Jurisdictions Make Final 

Determination on Sites 8 

Agriculture in Desert 8 

Approval of Eagle Mountain Site 9 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Waste Stream for Mesquite Site 9 

Local Responsibility for Waste Disposal 10 


Motion to Confirm 10 

Committee Action 11 


California Integrated Waste Management Board 11 

Background and Experience 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Tire Problem in California 13 

Use of Old Tires in Road Materials 14 

Appropriateness of Multi-member 

Board as Opposed to a Department 15 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: . • 

Any Problems with Even Number of 

Board Members 16 

Reason to Voting to Delay Taking a 

Position on SB 451 16 

Likelihood of Bill Coming Back 

to the Board 18 

Ideas for Reducing Waste other than 

That Contained in Bottle Bill 19 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Most Promising Ways to Reduce Amount of 

Solid Waste Generated 21 

Adding Wine and Liquor Bottles to 

Bottle Bill 22 

Future Issues to Address 2 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Ability to Reach 50 Percent Goal 25 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 2 6 

Termination of Proceedings 26 

Certificate of Reporter • 27 

— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, now we are at the 
remaining item, Mr. Frazee and Mr. Jones. Come up. 

MR. FRAZEE: Good afternoon, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you want to make any 
opening comment? 

MR. FRAZEE: Just briefly. 

I am Robert Frazee, seeking your confirmation of 
my appointment to a partial second term on the Integrated Waste 
Management Board. 

Just by way of background, I think at this point 
we can declare the Waste Management Act of 1989 a success or at 
least a partial success. The planning measures that came before 
our board are nearly 100 percent in compliance with the -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me interrupt because there 
are people that are waiting for me. I omitted one item 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative items.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry and apologize for 
the interruption. 

MR. FRAZEE: To continue, the tiered permitting 
exercise that the Board has been engaged in, which is a process 
that will make it easier for applicants to obtain waste 
facilities permits, is moving along very well. As I mentioned, 
we reached the 25 percent goal in '95, and are on our way to 
reaching the 50 percent goal in the year 2000, 

The tire and oil programs are both very active, 
and as is the RMDC, the Recycling Market Development Loan 
program. In that area, the Board marketed a number of loans 
this last year in order to increase the available funds in that 

The one point finally that I want to make is that 
we are a non-general fund agency. Our budget relies entirely 
upon proceeds from a surcharge on the tipping fee at landfills. 
And as our success increases, our budget decreases. And that's 
probably one of the rarities in government these days. 

So, I'm here seeking your confirmation of my 
appointment or reappointment to serve a term on the Board. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who 
wishes to comment at all, either for or against? 

Questions from Members? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question from the 
analysis. Your current term expires if first of January in the 
year 2001? 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, that's correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: Your current term expires then — 

MR. FRAZEE: That's the term that I have been 
appointed to is the one that has come up for confirmation 

SENATOR AYALA: What are you doing here if it's 
not until the year 2001? Okay. 

CHAIRMTVN LOCKYER: What's the hardest votes 
you've had to cast, or most difficult issue you've worked 

MR. FRAZEE: To be frank, I guess dealing with 
legislation is the most difficult area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you give me examples? 

MR. FRAZEE: Well, as you know, we have a 
Legislation Committee. We meet monthly, and review and make 
recommendations to the full Board on whether to support or to 
oppose legislation that's pending. 

Those decisions are sometimes in conflict with 
the administration positions, so they do create some trauma from 
time to time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Or Legislators, you mean. You 
mean like my bill. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. FRAZEE: I knew you were getting to that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I didn't mean to, but you 
brought it up. I figure anyone dumb enough to oppose my bill 
before you're confirmed, what are you going to be like after 
you're confirmed? 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, Mr. Chairman in my experience 
in this building, I've never found a good bill that couldn't be 
made better with the input of a number of other people -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: That is an impressive answer. 

MR. FRAZEE: — and particularly people with 
experience in the area. 

And that vote that you mentioned was one that was 
merely seeking amendments to the bill. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm supposed to be cranky, but 
it doesn't matter. I don't think it affects any vote. It may 

1 affect the signature. That's the only thing that would worry 

2 me . 

3 What's your current thought about 939? How are 
A you doing at meeting the goals, and where are you going to be 

5 short? 

6 You mentioned oil, and tires, and so on. 

7 Do you think you're going to stay close to those 

8 goals? 

9 MR. FRAZEE: I think so. There are moves afoot 

10 to change the goal. I'm certainly not one who is ready to do 

11 that at the present time. I think that we need to continue to 

12 push ahead and work towards achieving the 50 percent individual 

13 goal. 

14 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Our analysis raises the 

15 question, Mr. Frazee, of whether Cal-EPA has any tendency to 

16 treat the Board as an extension of itself, rather than an 

17 independent regulatory body. 

18 It only cites this one example of the Eastin 

19 recycled content measure, where, I guess, months after 

20 developing your policy, EPA said here's some changes that they 

21 wanted. There's some question about why are they butting in, 

22 and do you care? 

23 MR. FRAZEE: I have not had that experience. In 

24 fact, a little bit to my chagrin, there has not been the 

25 guidance or the pressure from Cal-EPA on any of our decisions. 
2 6 I think that we've been independent across the 

27 board. 

28 CHAIRMTUSf LOCKYER: Well, Members? Senator 


SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Frazee, I'm not going to 
talk empty desert stuff. I'm going to talk stuff all around my 
community and a lot of communities that look like mine. 

Senator Watson had a bill, SB 451. Was that this 
year, do you know? 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, I believe that bill is 

SENATOR HUGHES: Pending now. That had to do 
with solid waste, and hazardous waste, and liquid waste, and the 
reality that disproportionate effects have been seen in 
low-income and minority areas. 

You voted against that measure? 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, I voted to recommend opposition 
to the bill. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was asking him about the 
Watson bill, the disproportionate effect of this waste material 
going to urban areas . 

And Mr.. Frazee indicated that had he voted 
against it. 

Maybe you could tell me why you voted against 

MR. FRAZEE: Well, first of all, there are 
studies that dispute that fact of whether or not newly sited 
facilities are going in urban or minority areas. We've heard 
results of various studies. 

But first of all, the fact is that any 
legislation such as this would only be prospective in nature, 

1 would only affect newly sited facilities. 

2 If there's a problem, it's in the historic 

3 location of a number of these facilities, and I would not deny 

4 that those tend, many of them, to fall into minority areas. 

5 But again, this bill is prospective. 

6 Second, it -- from the standpoint of our Board, 

7 we are not permitted to second-guess the siting decisions of 

8 local government. All of that action of siting a facility must 

9 be done prior to the time that it reaches our Board. 

10 So, I think those two things came into play in my 

11 decision from the aspect of the Waste Board to oppose. 

12 SENATOR HUGHES: Was the vote unanimous? What 

13 was the vote like? 

14 MR. FRAZEE: Well, our Legislative Committee is 

15 made up of three members. It was a 2-1 vote. 

16 SENATOR HUGHES: Did Senator Watson come before 

17 your Board to make a pitch for this bill? 

18 MR. FRAZEE: No, she did not. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

20 To follow up on Senator Hughes's question, 

21 everybody knows the need for disposing of our waste. And 

22 everybody says, "Put it over there. Don't put it next to my 

23 neighborhood." 

24 What about the desert areas? I know that's not 

25 your responsibility. I know it's local government, but do you 

26 think it's good idea to use our deserts for this type of an 

27 operation? 

28 MR. FRAZEE: First of all, the siting decisions. 


as I mentioned earlier, are made before they reach us. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm asking for your personal 
opinion? I know that's not your responsibility. 

MR. FRAZEE: But we have all ready approved a 
siting of a desert facility in Imperial County. That's the only 
one that's come before us. I did support that. 

SENATOR AYALA: With the approval of local 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, that went through the entire 
CEQA process, through local government approvals. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could you have vetoed that, 
the Board? . 

MR. FRAZEE: No. We have a strange — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Why does it come before you, 
then? • 

MR. FRAZEE: For confirmation that everything is 
in place, so that we must assure that CEQA has been complied 
with, that all the local processes have been done. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you could delay it in that 

MR. FRAZEE: Yes, right. 

SENATOR AYALA: Are you aware of the proposed 
dump site in the desert? 


SENATOR AYALA: In a county where they'll be 
trucking in and train loads of garbage into that area. 

Shouldn't local supervisors make the final 
determination on that? 


1 MR. FRAZEE: Absolutely, yes. 

2 SENATOR AYALA: You're aware of that? There's 

3 some people that oppose it because it's going to contaminate the 

4 underground basin, they claim. 

5 Do you still believe that's a local jurisdiction 

6 that should not be tampered with? 

7 MR. FRAZEE: Yes. I believe that those siting 

8 decisions are strictly local by statute and by my own personal 

9 philosophy. 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that called Eagle 

11 Mountain, where you had the local referendums? 

12 SENATOR AYALA: I think they had a referendum 

13 there. 

14 SENATOR BRULTE : No, that was Waste Management 

15 out in Amboy. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What's the name of the 

17 location? 

18 SENATOR BRULTE: Amboy, A-m-b-o-y was the city. 

19 That was San Bernardino County where the vote was, not Riverside 

20 County where Eagle Mountain is. 

21 SENATOR AYALA: There's some agriculture going on 

22 in the middle of the desert there. 

23 MR. FRAZEE: Yes, I went out to look at the 

24 site. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: They discovered water under the 

26 ground, and they want to make sure that's not tampered with. 

27 But there's a lot of interest, especially from L.A. County and 

28 Orange County, that come in and train their garbage into our 


MR. FRAZEE: There are three competing rail haul 
sites. The one that you mentioned, Eagle Mountain in Riverside 
County, and the Mesquite landfill, which has been permitted in 
Imperial County. So, those three are competing for that. 

SENATOR AYALA: The one in Riverside County has 
been approved by the Board of Supervisors or the local 
jurisdiction which controls that area? 

MR. FRAZEE: It was approved once. Then it 
failed in the judicial arena. They are back now going through 
the process. 

The Riverside County Planning Commission has 
approved it, but I don't think it's been before the Board of 

This is the second time around for this one. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Assemblyman, question. 

Do you know where the waste stream for the 
Mesquite site will be coming from. 

MR. FRAZEE: The EIR calls for Los Angeles County 
only, but with a provision that with a modified or a subsequent 
EIR, that the waste stream from other Southern California 
counties could be accommodated, but that would require 
additional CEQA action. 

With the exception of a small component from 
Imperial County itself, obviously. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Some people suggest each county 
should be responsible for handling its own waste and land 


filling its own waste. 

Do you have a position on that? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's a little hard in San 
Francisco County. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Understand. 

MR. FRAZEE: That's a tough call. 

Somebody has suggested that each supervisorial 
district be responsible for their own, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, are you going to 
announce today, or are you holding this back that you're 
converting three urban golf courses into dumps. 


MR. FRAZEE: That's -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: They are looking at the land 
that currently has Hollywood Park sitting on it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: See, I knew it would affect my 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, we have a motion, I 
believe, by Senator Brulte. 

Is there anyone present who opposes? We don't 
have any in the file. There are a lot of supporters. 

Okay, Senator Brulte 's made that motion. Call 
the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
SENATOR HUGHES: Aye, provided it's not in my 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

MR. FRAZEE: Thank you, sir. 


Okay, Mr. Jones is our next and last item. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I didn't understand the Watson 
resolution, because now primarily L.A.'s taking its garbage and 
dumping it in outlying counties. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it was anticipating an 
apology for past dumping. 

Hi, go ahead. Do you want tell us something 
about yourself? 

MR. JONES: Absolutely. Thank you very much, 
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Rules Committee. 

I am honored to be here today as the Governor's 
appointee to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 

I fill the seat that is reserved for the 
industry. I am not the lobbyist for the industry, but I do 
bring 22 years of experience to this position. 

I started on a garbage truck in San Francisco. 
I am the true American success story.- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A guy named Jones. 


MR. JONES: A guy named Jones. If it makes you 
feel better, the second I was there, they called me "Moose, " and 
that name has stuck, and I don't know why. But throughout the 
entire nation, people know who Moose is. They're not sure they 
know who Steve Jones is. 

But I did come off a garbage truck and worked in 
the shops. I've had a career that has included everything from 
running a $250 million a year company, responsible for 38 
operating facilities, serving over 100 cities and counties in 
the State of California, as well as three other states. 

I recently, before being appointed, was the CEO 
of Cal-Sierra Disposal in Sonora, which is part of Tuolumne 
County in rural California. 

And I think that the things that I bring to this 
Board, besides the experience and the enthusiasm,. I think one 
more important thing is, as I have heard and as you -- I got 
CCs -- I think the support that I get and that I've gotten in 
this process, not only from my industry, but from the unions 
that I've dealt with over the years in negotiating contracts, 
from the environmental community, and from the local 
governments, says a lot about the kind of a manager that t am, 
because I have spent 22 years trying to build consensus to solve 
problems, not just taking arbitrary positions. 

When you site landfills, and you site transfer 
stations and recycling facilities, you've got to be able to make 
it work for all the constituents involved. 

I look forward to this process today. I feel 
confident that I'll be able to answer everybody's questions 


adequately, I hope. 

I do want you to know that I bring some deep 
concerns to deal with some of the problems in California. These 
were areas that I always had concern when I was in the business. 
Those include the tire problem that we have in the State of 
California. We've taken that on in our committee as one of our 
main issues, and those are the things we're trying to come up 
with solutions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are you going to be able 
to do? 

MR. JONES: We're working right now on civil 
engineering projects. We're also looking at the science of 
using tires as tire-derived fuel and supplemental, as a 
supplemental fuel source for cement kilns, where there is no 

The science that we have available today tells us 
that the emissions level actually are impacted positively, where 
they can go down and not up. There is no residual ash. 

Like I said, it's a win-win for everybody. 

One of those facilities burning, just using this 
as 15 percent of their fuel needs burns 3 million tires a 
year. We're in a state that has 30 million tires a year that 
are coming off of cars and ending up either needing to be 
disposed of in one form or another. 

We're working on civil engineering figuring out a 
way to chip tires, use those tires as foundation basis. We had 
brought out one of the experts from Maine, a Dana Humphries, who 
is considered the expert in civil engineering. 


We brought him out to California for a workshop 
and found four or five uses that are actually going to be 
cheaper uses that we are going to be able to bring forward to 
public works directors throughout this state on their projects 
that can save them some dollars. 

So, it's those types of -- you know, we all know 
about using them for crumb rubber, and using them for, you know, 
making playgrounds mats, making those types of materials. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For a while they were talking 
about throwing it in road materials. 

MR. JONES: And they still are, rubberized 
asphalt and concrete. In fact, we just — we've got an 
ongoing -- we've got two programs going. One with L.A. County, 
where we're doing a RAC project; that is, they're developing the 
criteria and helping other local jurisdictions in the uses of 
that material, so that they can actually have the right chemical 
formulas and save some dollars while utilizing those tires. 

Then we've got four projects going on right now 
throughout the state that we've helped fund through grant 
programs on those projects to get them out. 

The rubberized asphalt, the civil engineering 
uses, the molded rubber uses, they're going to take care of 
about 10 to 15 percent of the tire problem. They're not going 
to be able to take care of it all. 

It's very clear that tire-derived fuel is 
supplemental fuel when it makes sense, is where we're going to 
be able to get rid of the majority of those tires. Otherwise, 
we're going to have to ship them and put them in landfills, and 


I don't think we want to do that. 

Those are the types of things that I think I 
bring to this Board. 7\nd I have to tell you the truth, I enjoy 
what I'm doing. I've been here six months. I think I've made a 
positive impact in six months. I know I've enjoyed working with 
the staff and with the fellow Board members. 

The nice thing about this Board is that they all 
care. I may not agree with them all, all the time, but they 
care about what they're doing. And it shows every day in the 
decisions they make. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Jones, does it seem like 
the multi-member board is the appropriate way to deal with these 
issueS/ rather than one department, or something like that? 

MR. JONES: I think a multi-member board, as we 
have in place, was put into place on a part-time level back in 
the '70s, is the appropriate way to do it, because you bring -- 
you get a diverse background of people and of interests that can 
bring or lend their expertise into solving those types of 

I think as a department, things become arbitrary. 
That was one of the questions I was asked in my interview. My 
industry put my name forward to the Governor's Office, which was 
an unbelieveable honor for me, that they had asked me if I would 
do that. And that was one of the questions that I was asked. 

And told them, I thought that it made a lot of 
sense to have a full-time board to make those decisions, I 
support/ obviously, I support that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, I don't know that you've 


been there long enough to answer this question. 

Is it a problem with the even numbered board? 
Maybe I should have asked Mr. Frazee. Do you get bogged down, 
and either one of you or both of you can, perhaps, answer that 

MR. JONES: I don't think so. I think that as 
long as we have a fully staffed Board, as long as all six 
positions are occupied, I think coming up with four votes builds 
a level of consensus that may not otherwise have been there. 

I think that there needs to be an exchange. 
There needs to be that process to get to four votes. 

And it's -- you know, it's not always -- you'd be 
surprised sometimes at how those votes come out. It's not 
always 4-2. It's 5-1, you know, it's 3-3. They're just issues 
that were important. 

I think the independence of the Board comes 
through on those votes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I noted that when I asked 
Mr. Frazee how he voted on the Watson bill, he voted to oppose 

And you, Mr. Jones, voted to delay taking a 
position on it. 

What was your thinking there? How do you feel 
now about that bill? 

MR. JONES: I did support it to be held over 
because there were two reports that were going to be delivered 
to us that we hadn't seen prior to taking a position on that. 

I look at it a little bit differently, because 


I've done this for 22 years. And that's a bill that, in my 
opinion, looks at demographics. In all of the facilities that 
I've ever sited, we never looked at demographics. 

We looked at, you know, what the zoning was, 
where the area was, how central it was to what our operations 
were going to be. 

So, when I saw the bill that added that to it, I 
wanted to hear more about it. Within days of the board meeting, 
we had heard that there were these reports on both sides of the 

I also have concern, and I don't want it to sound 
far reaching, but it's the kind of thing that kind of wakes you 
up when you get put into it just as a policy maker, as all of 
you know. But this is my first cut at something like this, so I 
am going cautiously through these things. 

I had to represent the state, speaking with 
individuals from the Middle East and from South Africa on solid 
waste issues. They had come to the United States to look at 
facilities. They spent days in California looking at some of 
the things that were going on here. 

And in one of my discussions with a gentleman 
from Durbin, South Africa, he wasn't interested in looking at 
landfills. Because of environmental racism and because of the 
atrocities of apartheid over those years, he's forced now to 
build waste-to-energy plants in areas that it could never be 
construed that there was any environmental racism. 

When he told me that, and we were talking about 
the expense of putting in a waste-to-energy plant in South 

Africa, when they have all this land that they could use, that 
set me back a little bit as to, you know, how a decision -- how 
these decisions just keep -- the effects don't stop. 

So, when this bill came forward, and they were 
talking about environmental racism or those types of things, 
that was first thing that came into my mind. And my experience, 
that that was never an issue when we were siting facilities. 

Like I said, we always looked at zoning. We 
looked at where it is was in relationship to our operations. 
And was it the most cost effective way for us to operate our 
business so we could keep the rate down. 

So, when they said hold, I agreed to hold because 
I wanted to read those things so we could end up giving at least 
some kind of an informed decision, rather than just some 

But I have a problem with it until I understand 
it a little better. Like I say, my personal experience never 
lent that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Will this come up again? 

MR. JONES: It's supposed to come back next 
month. We're supposed to be getting those reports, probably 
have them, if they're not there now, they'll be there in the 
next couple of days. Then, when it comes up, after we've had a 
chance to read these things, then it'll be up in the next 
month's meeting, and we'll take it on. But we'll take it on a 
little better informed then. 


Regarding the so-called bottle bill, bottles and 


glass and plastic containers consist of only 2.5 percent of the 
solid waste stream. 

What ideas do you have for reducing the 79.5 
percent of waste that we create? 

MR. JONES: The rest of it? Other than the 
bottle bill? 

As I stated, we're at 30 percent right now. We 
have diverted 30 percent of our waste stream as of 1996, on 
target to our 50 percent mandate. 

Many of the things that -- we've identified the 
three biggest sources of waste in our state right now as being 
construction and demolition waste, yard waste, and paper. Those 
are all big, heavy components that a lot of energy hasn't been 
spent working on. 

I think the first five or six years of this 
process has been spent on building material recovery facilities, 
putting in curbside recycling programs, dealing with the 
educational programs, dealing with those types of programs that 
are at the curb, that people see, that start to affect people's 
thought processes. And now we're going after that harder part. 

Another big part of it is waste prevention. 
Shortly after I was appointed to this Board, being from Northern 
California, I took two trips to Southern California. And that 
second trip was with all of the public facilities -- the City of 
Los Angeles, County, L.A. Sand, San Diego, City of San Diego, 
Orange County. 

T^nd when I sat down with Drew Soames, who is the 
acting manager for solid waste for the City of L.A., and we were 


talking about different programs, he said, "I need help with 
some type of a mulching lawn mower program, or something that we 
can do because we're spending $35 a ton to pick yard waste up, 
and $38 a ton to process it. So, if I never have to pick it up, 
I've saved $70-some, plus I've affected our diversion rate, 
because that material's not going to a landfill anymore, which 
it was historically going to before." 

So, we started working together. In fact, it was 
one of the nice parts of dealing with Cal-EPA, because I talked 
to Pete Rooney, and he put me in touch with Mr. Dunlap, and we 
worked on the existing Air Board programs that they have that 
might help fund a lawn mower exchange program, where we put 
electric mulching lawn mowers into Southern California. 

That's driven by the bottom line. That's driven 
by a city administrator that doesn't want to spend $73 a ton to 
compost that waste. 

Those are the types of programs that we need to 
be thinking about . • We need to be thinking about things that 
prevent -- you know, we're always going to have waste. I mean, 
we will always have it; we have to. 

I mean, I've always told people, we're going to 
have death, taxes, and garbage. And I don't want to be 
considered a liar. 

We need to -- but we need to deal with things 
like that. And that's going to make sense for everybody in 
Southern California. They're having a meeting next week. I 
won't be there. I'll be at a Permitting Committee meeting in 
Sacramento, but the process is going forward. That could have 


huge effects on Southern California. 


SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

Mr. Jones, as I indicated to you this morning, I 
had a file full of letters from the industry supporting you. 
That's suspect, you know, and there's something going on with 
you and the industry that they all love you. 

I want to ask you, is Mr. Frazee doing a good 

[Laughter . ] 

MR. JONES: Yes, he does a great job. Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: What is your opinion of the most 
promising ways of reducing the amount of solid waste generated 
by people at large? Do you have any idea what's the best 

MR. JONES: I do . I think, and I'll go back 
again to personal experience, San Bruno, California. We started 
the first curb side recycling program, one of the first in the 
state. That was very successful. It had 80 percent 
participation. We always had approximately the same level of 
recyclables that were being recovered every week. 

All those things went a long for about four or 
five years. J^nd what we saw after about four-and-a-half years 
into the process was, we were taking one less transfer truck of 
residual waste to the landfill every week. 

So, little by little, people made choices. They 
went into stores because they had made that commitment to 
separate at their house. It took a long time. It took a while. 


but they started making choices when they went into the store 
and started buying things that weren't as wasteful as they had 

We're working with -- through Waste Prevention, 
one of our divisions at the Waste Board, we're working right now 
on transport packaging is what it was originally called. Now 
it's called a packaging and distribution process. 

And I'm involved in that thing with our staff. 
What we've done is, we've invited the manufacturers of the 
packaging, the manufacturers of the products that the packaging 
houses, the transportation industry who has to transport this 
stuff, the warehousemen, the recyclers, and the retailers. 

Because if we can make a change, no matter what 
that change is, or what the significance is, it needs to work 
for everybody up and down that line for it to be successful. If 
we're working, trying to do it this end, and all of a sudden we 
get to the transportation side and they say, "We can't move it. 
It's too flimsy. It's going to break. Our breakage is going to 
be up too high," we haven't done any good. 

So, we're bringing all those stakeholders in. 
That's going to have an impact at some point. And it's those 
types of things, I think, that are going to make the change. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think that wine and liquor 
bottles should be added to the materials subject to the bottle 

MR. JONES: The bottle bill is not under the 
Waste Board's purview, but in my own opinion, yeah, I think they 




SENATOR AYALA: Earlier, you expressed your 
concerns about some issue you'd like to be addressing in the 
days to come. Can you elaborate on what they are? 

MR. JONES: The tire issues, I think. Waste tire 
issues, I think. 

I think the potential for environmental damage 
with the stockpiles of tires in this state -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've got this movie I'm 
figuring out. I'll sell it to Steve Peace, I guess. 

How many tires has that guy got in the canyon 
near Tracy? It's 30 million or something? 

MR. JONES: Around 20. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Twenty million, a lot. 

You have the terrorist throw the starter into the 
middle of it. It melts, and it runs right across 1-5 and into 
the canal, and winds up in L.A. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is a good movie. 

MR. JONES: Scary time there. Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Don't sell it to Peace. He'll 
try it. 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: But anyway, the tire, that was 
the answer to your question. 

MR. JONES: For that very reason. It's very, 
very scary, the tires. 

The other issue that I'm working on, and we've 
just started, is, we brought together stakeholders from public 


and private landfill operators, because I think we need to come 
up with a standard of people that are running -- operating 
landfills throughout the State of California. 

This is very preliminary. We're working with 
eight people right now -- L.A. Sand District, County of 
Monterey, County of Orange -- to bring in their expertise from 
the public -- from the private sector and waste management, 
NorCal, BFI, BKK. 

We're bringing them together to start talking 
about how we can establish a threshold level, so that when 
somebody is operating a landfill in a jurisdiction, that 
jurisdiction and the public that it serves are going to know 
that they've met a standard, more than just dirt pushers. 

We are -- I'm not a dirt pusher. I'm a 
professional. I know what I'm doing when I build a landfill or 
fill a landfill. 

There's a lot of people out there that don't. We 
need to get that level there, or at least make a jurisdiction 
aware that there are people who can't pass a minimum standards 
test. They don't understand what the issues are. 

Because much like that tire, flood of tires, I 
don't want to see a flood of leachate. You know, those types of 
things that people just don't understand, and that's what part 
of our job is. 

So, we're working on those issues right now. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you feel reasonably good 



about getting to 50 percent? 

MR. JONES: I feel very good about getting to 50 
percent. I think that the legislation, AB 688, and the 
follow-up legislation, 1066, as long as a jurisdiction is making 
a good faith effort, then I think everybody is going to make 

My county in Tuolumne County, we're at 53 
percent. We had an advantage, because we had an ash stream that 
used to go to the landfill. We found out how to take that ash 
and reuse it positively. 

City of San Francisco doesn't have a yard waste 
or a C&D waste stream. So, it's very, very difficult, you know, 
for them to get to 50 percent. If they get to 40 -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They have marijuana plants. 

MR. JONES: Well, you know. 

And I think when we look at those issues — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think that's medicine now. 

MR. JONES: But yeah, I think with that 
legislation we will get there. 


Well, it perhaps is a tribute to how strongly 
people feel about you in your industry, as their representative 
on this Board, that I've had friends call from their vacations, 
out of state, to urge confirmation. It's a tribute, I think, to 
their feelings for you and your commitment and competence that 
they're that involved. 

Are we ready for a motion? Is there opposition 


SENATOR BRULTE: I don't know if you're 
competent, but I think that there ought to be someone else as 
big as I am in state government. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We now call him Moose Brulte. 
[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, I think that was a 
motion. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes Aye-. Senator Lewis. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
MR. JONES: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:55 P.M.] 
--ooOoo — 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of ^ -j^t.*-^^ , 1997. 


^ELYN^ J. mJzAK 
Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 334-R when ordering. 


SEP 2 2 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997 
1:55 RM. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JULY 14, 1997 
1:55 P.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 











GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




Public Utilities Commission 



PAUL M. RELIS, Member 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 


Public Utilities Commission 

Fish and Game Commission 

JOHN W. BROWN, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 



Moulton Niguel Water District 

Newhall County Water District 



Los Angeles County Sanitation District 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 


State Energy Resources Conservation and 

Development Commission 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 


Public Utilities Commission 1 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR QUENTIN KOPP 1 

Background and Experience 2 


Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Support for Some Kind of Review or 

Oversight Process of the Commission 6 

Water Companies Selling Surplus Water 

for Profit 6 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 14 


California Integrated Waste Management Board 8 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 9 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Disposing of Suburban and Urban Waste 

in Deserts 12 

Approval of Dump Sites that Might 

Contaminate Underground Water Basin 12 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 13 

JOHN W. BROWN, Member 

State Water Resources Control Board 14 

Introduction and Support by SENATOR JIM COSTA 14 

Background and Experience 15 


Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Major Water Quality Issues Facing 

California Today 16 

Position on Construction of Water 

Delivery Projects in California 17 

Is Existing Law Sufficient to Protect 

the Area of Origin 19 

Witnesses in Support; 


Moulton Niguel Water District 

Newhall County Water District 21 

California Association of Sanitation Agencies 
Los Angeles County Sanitation District 22 

Motion to Confirm . 23 

Committee Action 23 


Public Utilities Commission 23 

Background and Experience 2 3 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Update on Electrical Restructuring 25 

Motion to Confirm 26 

Committee Action 2 6 


Fish and Game Commission 2 6 

Opening Statement 2 6 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Most Difficult Decision while on 

Commission 27 

Motion to Confirm 27 

Committee Action 27 



State Energy Resources Conservation and 

Development Commission 27 

Background and Experience 28 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Peaking of Gasoline Prices 29 

Gasoline Shortages 31 

Motion to Confirm 32 

Committee Action 32 

Testimony in Support of BILAS and DUQUE by 


Termination of Proceedings 3 3 

Certificate of Reporter 34 


SENATOR LEWIS: We are going to start on Governor 
appointees appearing today, and going to start on appointee 
number four, Mr. Henry Duque. 

Senator Kopp, welcome to the Committee. 

SENATOR KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. 

It was a couple of years ago that I appeared 
before this Committee with substantially the same membership to 
present Mr. Duque and to forecast a person of integrity's 
ability to perform responsibly and honestly, and with good 
judgment and good common sense during a prescidential period in 
the existence of the California Public Utilities Commission. 

I was pleased to recommend his confirmation to 
the Rules Committee. His confirmation was recommended by the 
Rules Committee of the Senate, which approved it unanimously. 

He has performed in accordance with the standard 
and in accordance with the principles which have characterized 
his life and his career, both in private industry and as a 
member of this very important commission of the State of 
California. It is appropriate, therefore, for me again to 
recommend him. 

The transformation of the manner in which 
utilities do business in California has been ratified 
legislatively. The implementation will be equally as 
excruciating in terms of details and in terms of the ability to 
know the subject matter, and to render such actions applicable 

1 as are appropriate. 

2 And Mr. Duque is even more qualified than he was 

3 previously, because he now processes the benefit of years of 

A experience and years of being in the eye of all of the debate, 

5 and the disputes, and discussions, and speculation, and 

6 conjecture about the transformation of the manner in which 

7 utilities do business in California. 

8 He has performed impeccably, and his reputation 

9 for that impeccability of performance and of execution of his 

10 duties is even more knowledgeable in terms of the Legislature 

11 and the Governor than it was before. 

12 So in sum, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

13 Committee, not only do I recommend his confirmation, but I 

14 recommend it without a reservation or without any equivocation 

15 and commend to you Mr. Henry Duque for confirmation on his 

16 reappointment to the Public Utilities Commission. 

17 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Kopp, thank you very 

18 much. 

19 Mr. Duque, welcome. Do you have an opening 

20 statement? 

21 MR. DUQUE: Yes, I do. Senator Lewis. 

22 I am pleased to have been nominated for a 

23 complete six-year term as a Commissioner of the CPUC. When I 

24 appeared before you in March of 1996, you saw a novice 

25 Commissioner working diligently to decide utility matters 

26 consistent with the laws and needs of Californians . 

27 Today, by explaining my regulatory philosophy, my 

28 view of the role of government, and what I have done to make a 

difference in the lives of Californians, I hope to provide you 
the information necessary to confirm me for a second term. 

As a Commissioner, I have developed guiding 
principles to assist me in implementing the law in a way which I 
believe serves California citizens well. When the statute 
leaves limited room for interpretation, this job is quite 
simple. But often, statutes provide for a broad policy 
framework from within which the Commission must operate. 

To assist in my decision making, I have a list of 
four goals. First, producing an outcome fair to the consumers; 
second, producing an outcome fair to both owners or 
stockholders; third, reducing regulation; and fourth, promoting 
infrastructure investment in California. This short list helps 
me keep my day-to-day operations in order. 

Keeping government actions simple and focused is 
the key to successfully implementing the state laws that seek to 
open California markets to new entrants. As an individual who 
brings managerial experience to this position, my approach to 
cases relies more on the facts before me than on an overall 
ideology which leads to the same result in all situations, no 
matter how different. 

This approach, however, often requires me to 
explain my actions to those with non-managerial backgrounds. In 
my confirmation materials, I have included two examples of how I 
decided particular issues which provide a good illustration to 
my approach. 

When I joined the Commission, I brought to my 
position much experience in getting things done, both as a 

1 banking executive and a member of boards of nonprofit community 

2 service organizations. Moreover, as a saving and loan 

3 executive, I knew that a bank lives or dies by how well it 

4 communicates with its customers and solves their service 

5 problems. 

6 I believe that government should be even more 

7 concerned with citizens than a bank with customers, and I've 

8 oragnized my own office to reflect this belief. 

9 There are two policies I have implemented with a 

10 measure of success. First, my staff and I take correspondence 

11 very seriously. When a citizen takes time to write a letter, I 

12 read it, respond, and where possible, my staff and I take 

13 further steps to address the concerns of the writer. 

14 In my time in office, I have answered and 

15 personally signed over 1700 letters from ratepayers, 

16 constituents, throughout the state. 

17 Secondly, I actively manage my load of assigned 

18 cases, meeting monthly with the administrative law judges in 

19 each industry we serve. In my view, citizens and companies 

20 deserve timely regulatory action, and my participation in these 

21 meetings enables me to give judges guidance where needed, and to 

22 ensure that no cases fall through the cracks. These are modest, 

23 good government actions. 

24 My experience indicates that almost every 

25 employee and manager believes in these policies, but when 

26 resources are constrained, these policies can fall by the 

27 wayside. My hope is that by focusing as much on these matters, 

28 as well as on the weighty decisions before the organization, I 

will remain linked to the citizen whom I seek to serve. 

I believe these steps are consistent with the 
objectives of Senate Bill 960, passed by the Legislature last 
year, to make Commissioners more accountable to the public. I 
firmly believe that we should be held accountable, so many of my 
office procedures are designed to improve accountability. 

Other steps I have taken include attending as 
many hearings as possible in my assigned cases, holding 
primarily all party meetings in cases which I believe fall into 
the rate setting category, and working closely with judges to 
manage these cases assigned to me . 

My experience to date indicates that these 
actions will yield good results for Californians, and will 
promote good relations between the Commission, citizens, and the 

I hope that you will give me the opportunity to 
continue to serve California in this way. 

SENATOR LEWIS: That you very much, Mr. Duque . 

I understand. Senator Vasconcellos, did you want 
to testify. 


I had hoped to be here at the opening to 
introduce Mr. Duque. 

In 1950, I graduated from high school. One of my 
classmates was Hank Duque. I've known him over the years. He's 
a man of intelligence, integrity, and commitment. And I think 
he works hard on behalf of the people of California, and I hope 
that you will see fit to confirm him. 

1 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you, Senator. 

2 Do any Members of the Committee preliminarily 

3 have any questions for Mr. Duque? Senator Ayala. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: I think you indicated that you 

5 support the PUC ' s actions to have an oversight by the lower 

6 court. As you well know, the only oversight today is the 
1 Supreme Court . 

8 MR. DUQUE: That's right. 

9 SENATOR AYALA: So, they don't appear to be the 

10 that accountable to the general public. So, I suppose you 

11 would, by your statements, you would support some kind of review 

12 process? 

13 MR. DUQUE: I do support judicial review. I 

14 personally don't feel that it should be any level of courts, but 

15 I think it should be restricted in sojne way, but I think it 

16 should be broadened further than it is now. I'm not sure this 

17 is the way we're doing it is the right way. 

18 SENATOR AYALA: Question of a personal nature, . 

19 somewhat. 

20 If a mutual water company was allowed to sell 

21 their surplus water at a profit, would that necessarily take 

22 them out from under the jurisdiction of the PUC? 

2 3 MR. DUQUE: I don't know whether it would or 

24 not. 

25 SENATOR AYALA: That by itself, you're not sure? 
2 6 MR. DUQUE: I'm not sure. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: I understand there's more to the 

28 question, but anyway, you're not aware of whether a mutual water 

company, if they were allowed to sell their water for profit 
making without any restrictions, you don't know -- 

MR. DUQUE : Senator, I'm not opposed to people 
making profits. 

SENATOR AYALA: Oh, I don't think anybody is that 
I'm aware of. Profit is not a dirty word. 

But I think that in the case of mutual water 
companies, I believe that the surplus water, they can only sell 
it at cost, according to what I understand. And if they wanted 
to change that, it would have to be the PUC doing it. 

But you're not aware of that transaction? 

MR. DUQUE: I am aware, but let the first one 
come up and we'll see what we do. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. DUQUE: Thank you, sir. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Is there anyone in the audience 
that would like to testify in behalf of Mr. Duque at this time? 
Anyone that would wish to testify in opposition to his 
confirmation or express reservations or concerns? 


SENATOR LEWIS: We have a motion on the 
confirmation. Please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
Senator Lewis. 



2 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

3 Three to zero. 

4 SENATOR LEWIS: Three to zero, congratulations. 

5 MR. DUQUE : Thank you very much. I appreciate 

6 it, and I will try to continue to do my best. 

7 [Thereupon the Senate Rules 

8 Committee acted upon other 

9 agenda items . ] 

10 SENATOR LEWIS: We're going to now go to item 

11 number six. Governor's appointees, we have Senator O'Connell 

12 here who would like to make an introduction. 

13 SENATOR O'CONNELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

14 Members of the Committee. 

15 . I just briefly wanted to introduce, reintroduce, 

16 really, to you Paul Relis, who is seeking an additional term on 

17 the Integrated Waste Management Board. 

18 Paul and I have been friends for nearly 20 years. 

19 He's from Santa Barbara, very well respected statewide as well 

20 as from our community. His background has been in environmental 

21 studies. He has, I think, a real strength in being able to 

22 bring people together on some very complex issues. He has a 

23 great understanding of these issues. 

24 He's the founder of the Environmental Defense 

25 Center in Santa Barbara. It continues to remain in existence 

26 today. There 've been numerous significant national conferences 

27 held at the Center. It's now called the Heald Day Center in 

28 Santa Barbara. 

And Paul's just been a truly stalwart, 
outstanding appointment from the Governor from day one. He's 
traveled the state extensively, and I certainly want to urge 
this Committee to reappoint Paul Relis to the Integrated Waste 
Management Board. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Mr. Relis, welcome to the Committee. Do you have 
an opening statement you'd like to make? 

MR. RELIS: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Please proceed. 

MR. RELIS: Members of the Rules Committee, I 
appreciate being here today and speaking to the matter of my 
confirmation. I would like to highlight what I think are my 
accomplishments on the Board. 

First, a few words in general. I have tried, in 
the over five years I've been at the Board, to be diligent in 
bringing about the fruition of AB 939. The crux of this law is 
to divert by 50 percent the solid waste going to landfill by the 
year 2000. 

We believe at the Board that we are, at this 
point, slightly over 30 percent in reaching this goal through 
waste reduction and recycling. 

In hearings last year on the solid waste 
situation, it was stated numerous times that we need to find 
markets for the some 20 million tons of solid waste that we are 
seeking to convert into marketable materials. Thus far, we have 
developed markets for about 13 million tons, and I have taken a 
leadership roll at the Board in developing these markets. 


1 Briefly, our approach has been to develop a 

2 recycling market development zone loan program. Thus far, we've 

3 made nearly 60 loans, totaling approximately $25 million to 

4 manufacturers who use recycled content in the production of 

5 various goods and services to the state. In fact, in that 

6 regard. Senator O'Connell authored a bill which I worked with 

7 his office on that allowed us to leverage the limited funds that 

8 we have, and just this last year we sold 5 million in loans on 

9 the secondary marketplace just augmenting our dollars. 

10 In reaching a goal like AB 939 calls for, we have 

11 to target the waste stream that we seek to reduce. Organics, or 

12 green materials, food wastes, other materials, account for 

13 between a quarter and a third of the waste streams of 

14 California. We must recover about 70 percent of this material 

15 to reach our objective. 

16 I have spearheaded the Board's efforts to build 

17 an organics recycling industry in our state, tied to California 

18 agriculture. Our focus is advancing the use of organics as 

19 composts and mulches in the agricultural sector. And we engaged 

20 the UC Cooperative Extension Service in a three-year research 

21 program to demonstrate the applicability of organics to 

22 agriculture. 

23 I'm currently working with the Natural Resources 

24 Conservation Service through the federal Farm Bill to provide 

25 dollars as incentives to farmers just beginning to use this 

26 material. 

27 Another important focus is in construction and 

28 demolition waste. We are setting up a comprehensive program 


statewide to recover debris from natural disasters, recycle this 
material. We're working with the Office of Planning and 
Research on base closures and recovering those materials. 

Procurement is another area, the buying of 
recycled materials, and I have led many of Board's efforts in 
that area. 

Finally, I would like to highlight the invaluable 
critical enforcement function that the Board plays. We are here 
to enforce high environmental standards for the operation of 
landfills, and as well for compost material recovery facilities, 
what we would lump as recycling facilities. I've pushed for 
strong Board enforcement policies, well-trained and effective 
local enforcement agents. I've been an advocate of more 
training for these local enforcement agents, and for a rigorous 
evaluation of their performance. 

In summary, I've been a strong advocate of AB 
939, and I've helped develop effective working relationships 
with a broad range of industry and environmental organizations 
and the waste industry itself. I'm proud of the accomplishments 
of the Board, and I appreciate your consideration today before 
my confirmation hearing. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Relis. 

Any questions from Members of the Committee? 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: As you probably know. Senator 
Brulte and I represent an area with the largest desert. 

MR. RELIS: Yes. 


1 SENATOR AYALA: How do you feel about the desert 

2 as a good location for disposing of urban and suburban waste? Do 

3 you support that? I know it's a local government declaration. 

4 MR. RELIS: Well/ I can explain my approach. 

5 We had the first of the major desert landfills, 

6 the Mesquite landfill, was approved for operation by our Board 

7 just a little over a month ago. That was after a very careful 

8 study of the environmental considerations related to that 

9 project. 

10 • The Board's purview in considering applications 

11 and permits is fairly narrow. Many people are concerned about 

12 the broader issue, should landfills be built in the desert or 

13 not. It's not in the Board's purview to make that decision. 

14 We are obligated to focus strictly on the 

15 operation and enforcement of state minimum standards, and that's 

16 how I make my evaluation. Does the landfill meet the state's 

17 enviornmental laws, and for the health and safety of landfill 

18 operations as stated under the law, and that's what I look at. 

19 So, it's a case by case analysis. 

20 SENATOR AYALA: You're involved in the permit 

21 section a dump site. Would you approve a site that would have 

22 the probability of underground contamination of water? 

23 MR. RELIS: Well, I would be very concerned about 

24 it. 

25 As you may know, under AB 1220 several years ago, 

26 the overlap between the Board, the Waste Board and the Water 

27 Board, a line was drawn between our two functions saying that 

28 the Waste Board shall not second-guess the Water Board on water 


issues, and vice-versa. 

The main decision regarding water issues is that 
of the Water Board. And we look to what their decision is 
regarding those concerns. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any other questions at this 

T^nyone in the audience wishing to testify in 
behalf of the nominee? Please come forward. Apparently not. 

Anyone in the audience wishing to express 
opposition or any reservations at this time? 


SENATOR LEWIS: We have a motion by Senator 
Brulte. Please call the roll on the confirmation. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Four to zero. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Four to zero, congratulations. 

MR. RELIS: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you would open the roll, 
please, on Mr. Duque . 

SENATOR LEWIS: Please open the roll on Mr. 


1 Duque's confirmation. The current vote is Ayes three. Noes 

2 zero. 



5 SENATOR LEWIS: Three to one: Ayes three, noes 

6 one. Mr. Duque is confirmed. 

7 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Costa, please come 

8 forward. 

9 We would ask Mr. John Brown to please come 

10 forward. 

11 Senator Costa. 

12 SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

13 again and Members of the Rules Committee. 

14 I also wanted to introduce Mr. John Brown who has 

15 served on the State Water Resources Control Board as the Vice 

16 Chairman, I believe, since 1993, when he was first appointed by 

17 Governor Wilson. 

18 Mr. Brown has an extensive background in civil 

19 engineering in which he has distinguished himself over the last 

20 three decades. He not only has the personal experience and the 

21 educational background as a graduate at Cal . State University at 

22 Los Angeles, but he also understands very well the issues 

23 surrounding water, water quality, and water law that is so 

24 important not only to California's past, but to its present, and 

25 more importantly, to its future. 

26 Water issues can be contentious, and Mr. Brown 

27 knows that extremely well. In an attempt to try to improve 

28 water quality for all citizens of California, I believe that 


Mr. Brown has done a good job during the years that he has 
served on the State Water Quality Control Board, which is why 
I'm here this afternoon, to ask Members of the Rules Committee 
to support his renomination for his second term. 

In spite of that, there's a lot of information 
and issues, articles that he has published. He also happens to 
be from the Valley and grew up in the Tulare area there, and 
went to College of the Sequoias. 

I've known him personally for a number of years. 
I believe that he'll continue to do a good job if the Senate 
secures his nomination for a second term. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. Senator Costa. 

Welcome, Mr. Brown. The Committee has certainly 
been made aware of an impressive array of support that you have 
gathered for your confirmation. 

With that, do you have an opening statement that 
you'd like to make at this time? 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. 
It has indeed been my pleasure and privilege to 
serve the State of California during these last four years. 
I've enjoyed the term immensely. It's been a considerable 
different assignment from my previous professional career. 

I've spent 30 years in this state as an engineer, 
working from the Imperial Valley up to Crescent City, and the 
last 12 years now in Sacramento. 

In my earlier professional career, working as a 
civil engineer, and before that for the Irvine Ranch in Southern 
California, it was my job as an engineer, to help identify 


1 problems and solutions to those problems. 

2 The last four years in state government, I find a 

3 job just a little bit different in that we base our decisions 

4 upon the rules of evidence. We listen to the testimony, and 

5 all people who come before us have an equal and fair chance to 

6 present their case. And our Board does that very well, and I've 

7 been very proud to have been a part of this State Water 

8 Resources Control Board during the last four years. I'm very 

9 honored to be before this Committee. 

10 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

11 7\ny Members of the Committee have any questions 

12 at this point? Senator Ayala. 

13 SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Brown, what do you consider 

14 the major water quality issues facing California today? 

15 MR. BROWN: Senator Ayala, that's an excellent 

16 question. 

17 The major issue within California water resources 

18 today is the imbalance of supply versus demand. 

19 With the influx of people that we have in our 

20 state, I think we're now at 32 million, and we're projected to 

21 go close to 50 million by the year 2010 Or 2020. And the 

22 existing water supply being in the neighborhood of 33 million 

23 acre feet a year, while the demand today is about 35 million 

24 acre feet a year, which results in a 2 million acre foot 

25 shortfall annually. 

26 This shortfall is currently being made up by 

27 mining groundwater basins, mainly in the San Joaquin Valley and 

28 the Salinas Valley, and other parts of the state. 


With the projections with the loss of the 
Colorado River water, which I know you're well aware of, 
Senator, 662,000 acre feet to the Central Arizona Project, we're 
programmed to lose, we will probably lose additional water 

Indian claims on the Colorado River. There's 
five tribes over there, as you know, that have additional claims 
that could result in maybe 2-400,000 acre feet more water. 

And the influx of the additional people moving 
into California, 600,000 to 7 or 800,000 people a year, that 
shortfall is projected to grow in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 
million acre feet a year. That's our problem. 

And with that shortfall existing like it is, it 
has fallouts, like with the Bay-Delta issues, and the mining of 
groundwater basins and such. That's probably our most concern. 

SENATOR AYALA: The discussion of the Auburn Dam, 
at one time I felt it was a regional issue, but I think it's 
very much a state issue now. Building that dam would provide 
water that would be needed for water quality standards for the 
Bay without taking water interests from those who already very 
permits from the state, from Northern to Southern California. 

What is your position on the construction of 
water delivery projects from Northern California to Southern 

MR. BROWN: My position is that I think we should 
pay our own way in water resources, whatever we do . I don't 
believe that the people who are responsible for water resources 

today/ ourselves, should be mining water resources from future 
generations . 

We may have disagreements on how to do this, and 
how to balance supplies with demands, and that's fair and is to 
be expected. But when the different factions, whether it's 
agriculture, or the environmental community, or the domestic 
water users community, when we're done discussing how it should 
be done, and arguing over whose right is what, at least we 
should agree up front that we will not use collectively more 
water than what we're entitled to use. 

If we do come together and develop a program 
where we can balance supplies with demands, then the answer to 
your question is, what are the best options to do this? And if 
we balance supply with demand, we really only have two options. 
We either have to develop more new projects, or we have to use 
less water. 

We've been trying to develop new projects in this 
state since -- the last one was in 1982, which was New Melones 
Dam and Reservoir. That's probably the -- it is the last major 
project this state has developed. 

But nevertheless, we should continue looking for 
new projects, whether it's Auburn Dam, or Cottonwood Creek 
Reservoir, or Los Banos Grandes Dam and Reservoir, or the Kern 
County Groundwater Bank, we should look at new projects to help 
meet our deficit in water supply. 

In addition to, we should be looking at using 
less water, conserving water like I know you've helped to 
encourage in the Imperial Valley. A considerable amount of 


conservation has taken place there. And also in the San Joaquin 
Valley, we've been privileged to see the agricultural community 
to go from furrow irrigation, and flood irrigation, into drip 
and sprinkler, and that has saved water. 

So, there's lots of ways the urban community can 
conserve water, and they're doing that with some of their -- the 
improved conservation measures with low-flush toilets, and the 
shower heads, and all those count. 

So, the answer to your question, what are the 
best options to meet supply with demand, and they can be 
determined and figured out. And I think the water community is 
working very hard at doing that. Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's an existing statute that 
protects the area of origin as it pertains to water. 

Do you think it's sufficient to protect the north 
so that water would not be taken from that area, or anywhere 
else in the state, without protection of the area of origin. 

Do you think existing law is sufficient to 
protect the north? 

MR. BROWN: I hope it is, because there's lots of 
-- there are several areas of origins that I know with the 
Mountain County Water Resource Agencies which I've followed for 
years. These people have wonderful ground in which to develop. 
They're getting a lot of the urban pressures on their 
communities now. 

Some of those communities, as you know, have had 
their water resources developed and taken from their areas of 
origin, to where many of them today really do not have enough 


1 water to meet their own existing needs, much less the projected 

2 needs. 

3 It's important that we protect those areas of 

4 origin because those folks don't really have an alternative 

5 plan. Down in the valley, we can do things like water 

6 marketing, and transfers, and conservation and reclamation, and 

7 come up with some additional sources of supply. 

8 But when you're in the foothills and the 

9 mountains, they really can't do that up there. They're relying 

10 heavily upon the rainfall and water that falls within those 

11 areas. So, we need to be very sensitive to these areas and make 

12 sure that we leave them with enough water to take care of their 

13 needs, because their plan, too, is very difficult. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: So, you feel that the existing 

15 statute is sufficient, if it's adhered to, to protect the area 

16 of origin? 

17 MR. BROWN: The answer is, I hope so. Senator, 

18 but I don't know. 

19 SENATOR AYALA: Do you think we should put it 

20 into the Constitution as an amendment to make sure that it's 

21 more difficult to change? 

22 Some of my northern friends feel that it's so 

23 easy to change, 21 votes in the Senate, 41 in the Assembly, and 

24 it's changed. And they don't feel secure with that existing 

25 statute, but an amendment to the Constitution would be more 

26 difficult to change and to give northern area of origin 

27 protection that they -- they'll probably use another excuse to 

28 fight it, but at least they won't be able to fight it before 


because they lose their water. 

None of the bills that I'm aware of always 
protected the north in terms of taking water that was ear-marked 
for the area of origin, not a drop would go south until those 
users were protected. 

So, I suppose that if you put it in the 
Constitution, there'll still be some people that would fight it 
anyway, but at least it would be maybe a few less than 
before . 

MR. BROWN: I would leave that to the good 
judgment and wisdom of the Legislature if we need better laws 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Anyone in the audience wishing to testify in 
behalf of Mr. Brown's confirmation? Please come forward. 

MR. MACOLA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Members. I'm here 
at the request of the Moulton Niguel Water District, the Newhall 
County Water District, and also myself. 

I am Stephen Macola. I had the honor of serving 
as the Senate's water consultant for 20 years. 

I recommend Mr. Brown to you without 
qualification, and I ask for your yes vote in this confirmation. 

And I thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Macola. 

Next, please. 

MR. STAHL: Members of the Committee, my name is 
Jim Stahl. Like the person before me, for the sake of 


efficiency/ I'll testify for a number of people. 

Mike Dillon, who is the Executive Director of the 
California Association of Sanitation Agencies, is upstairs at a 
Business and Professions Committee hearing, and so as a past 
President of CASA, I would like to support without any 
qualifications the nomination of Mr. Brown for appointment to 
the State Water Resources Control Board. 

I'm also, for living, I am the Assistant Chief 
Engineer and General Manager of the Los Angeles County 
Sanitation District. We represent some 78 cities and 5 million 
people in Los TVngeles County. We, too, as an organization would 
like to give our unqualified support for Mr. Brown. 

I might say to you as an individual and someone 
that has dealt with him, his attributes are unquestioned in my 
mind as far as someone who studies the issues. He is a 
listener. He is accessible, and he gives well-reasoned 

I don't want to in any way tell you that I always 
agree with him, but I think that anybody who has those 
attributes and sits on a board is someone that deserves another 

Again, I would recommend his unqualified service 
again on the State Water Resources Control Board. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

MR. STAHL: Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any further testimony in behalf 
of the confirmation? 

Any testimony in opposition to the confirmation. 


or anyone wishing to express reservations? 

Mr. Brown, we don't currently have a quorem, so 
we're going to excuse you temporarily, and when we reestablish a 
quorem, at that point in time we'll call for a vote. 

MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR AYALA moved 
the confirmation, and the final 
vote was 5-0 to recommend 
confirmation to the Floor.] 

SENATOR LEWIS: We will, however, proceed with 
the agenda and ask Mr. Richard Bilas to please come forward. 

MR. BILAS: Senators, I do have a brief 

I am pleased to be here this afternoon to present 
my credentials to this committee. 

I bring to this position at the CPUC 
26-and-a-half years of experience in teaching and researching 
the economic theory of markets and market power. 

I started my career at the University of Southern 
California back in the early 1960s, and was on the initial 
faculty at the State University in Bakersfield when it opened in 

In 1987, I was appointed to the California Energy 
Commission and served eight-and-a-half years there, from March 
of 1987 through August of 1995, during which time I helped 
introduce interstate gas pipelines into the State of California 
to bring about true gas-on-gas competition. And also chaired 
three electricity reports for the Energy Commission, where I 


learned a good deal about the electric utility system in this 

I left the Energy Commission in August of 1995, 
to take a position at the University of Oklahoma, where I had 
the John A. and Donnie Brock Chair in Energy, Economics and 
Policy, and for a year-and-a-half taught at the University, and 
also helped several of the members of the Senate and members of 
the Corporation Committee ferret out the problems that they were 
seeing in electricity restructuring in their state. 

With the issues of gas, electric and telecom 
restructuring brings many challenges to the State of California. 
Challenges such as, how do we curtail market power were it to 
exist? Is there adequate consumer protection? 

I believe my knowledge of market power issues and 
competitive market fundamentals is of considerable value to us 
as we make the transition in these heretofore regulated 
industries to full consumer choice. 

While on the Energy Commission, I believe I 
earned the reputation of being open, fair, thoughtful, and 
independent. I hope you will give me the opportunity to once 
again serve the people of this state. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Bilas. 

Senator Ayala, any questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Anyone in the audience wishing to 
testify in behalf of Mr. Bilas' s confirmation? Anyone in the 
audience wishing to express reservations or opposition at this 
point in time? 



You're getting off pretty easy, Mr. Bilas. 

MR. BILAS: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Why don't you give us a little 
update on what's happening with electrical restructuring? 

MR. BILAS: We are getting prepared to move 
forward on 01/01/98. We have few formidable issues before us, 
but if the software works, which we haven't seen yet, but if the 
software for independent system operator works, and for the 
power exchange works, I think we will be ready to go. 

We are studying divestiture right now, and we're 
moving forward on the divestiture front, which will help us 
overcome the competition transition charge, if we can have these 
utilities be able to sell their power plants that they had said 
they would sell. 

We are working on affiliate rules right now so 
that it's a level playing field, so that the regulated arm and 
the deregulated arm don't have different rules by which they 

I think once we solve those problems, we'll be 
ready to go. We've approved direct access for all consumers 
beginning 01/01/98. 

Marketers and aggregators are currently 
registering. They began their registration process July 1. On 
November 1, individuals and other entities will be able to 
petition for direct access from their supplier, apply for direct 

And we'll find out by the end of November just 
how many organizations are going to be taking -- taking 


1 advantage of direct access. That make cause a bit of a bottle 

2 neck, but we're prepared to handle that when and if that 

3 develops. 

A I think in answer to your question, Senator 

5 Lewis, and I know you'd like to keep me here the rest of the 

6 day, and I'd be very happy to continue to talk. As a former 

7 college professor, we always talk in 50-minute blocks, so it's 

8 never a difficult task. 

9 I think in a nutshell, we're about ready to go. 

10 And we're looking forward to going, because we want to give 

11 consumers real choice. I think that's the key to all of the 

12 deregulation and restructuring matters. 

13 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. We're still 

14 operating without a quorem, so please take a seat in the 

15 audience and we will move forward. 

16 [Thereafter, SENATOR AYALA moved 

17 the confirmation, and the final 

18 vote was 5-0 to recommend 

19 confirmation to the Floor.] 

20 SENATOR LEWIS: At this point in time, we invite 

21 Mr. Frank Boren to please come forward. 

22 SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Boren, welcome to the 

23 Committee. 

24 MR. BOREN: Thank you. 

25 SENATOR LEWIS: Would you like to give some kind 

26 of an opening statement? 

27 MR. BOREN: I didn't prepare one, but I would 

28 like to be reappointed. I believe I have the institutional 


memory. I have a business background, and I have some 
environmental credentials. 

I feel I can bring a balance and bridge those 
parts of our society to better decisions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Senator Ayala, any questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have no questions at this 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Boren, what's the most 
difficult decision you've had to make so far on the Commission? 

MR. BOREN: The severity of the California 
Endangered Species Act, the lack of flexibility in it, and the 
need for peer group science to administer it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Anyone in the audience wishing to 
testify in behalf of the confirmation? Why is everybody here 

Anyone had the audience wanting to testify in 
opposition or express concerns? 

Okay, you're getting a pretty good pass today. 
Thank you for appearing. 

[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE moved 
the confirmation, and the final 
vote was 5-0 to recommend 
confirmation to the Floor.] 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Michal Moore, please come 
forward. Good afternoon. 

MR. MOORE: Good afternoon, Senator, Senator 


1 Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to be with you today to 

2 ask for confirmation to my appointment to the California Energy 

3 Commission. 

4 I have served as the economist designated 

5 appointee since October of 1995, when I completed the unfinished 

6 term of Richard Bilas, whom you just saw, who has been moved to 

7 the CPUC. 

8 I am performing my duties at a critical point in 

9 history, due largely to the passage of a bill authored by 

10 Senator Brulte, which is resulting in a reconfiguration of the 

11 entire electricity industry in California. 

12 The new energy markets will demand competitive 

13 and innovative regulatory systems. In the face of that demand, 

14 the California Energy Commission is reinventing itself, 

15 streamlining and systemmatically removing imbedded obstructions 

16 and inefficiencies. I'm very proud of the fact that I have 

17 participated in and provided the impetus for many of these 

18 changes. 

19 Two very large scale projects which I direct 

20 currently are dominating my time. The first of these is the 

21 design and eventual implementation of the AB 1890 Renewable 

22 Energy Program, and the second is the rule making for 

23 information and data collection that will ultimately impact' 

24 anyone seeking data and analysis in the energy field. 

25 My goal is to create a legacy that reflects a 

26 cooperative, progressive partnership between government and 

27 industry, designed to ensure not only consumer confidence, but 

28 the most cost effective and reliable energy system in the 




I offer you my credentials, and I'm pleased to 
answer any questions you may have, Senator. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Senator Ayala, any questions? 


Mr. Moore, one of the questions that comes up 
quite frequently, why is it that gasoline prices peak so quickly 
and stay there for a while? Is there any way that you folks are 
involved with that action? 

MR. MOORE: Senator, we're not involved in any 
way in the forces that cause the peaking. 

But where we are and have been involved is in the 
record keeping and the reporting out of what the changes are so 
that the consumers, and you, the Legislature, have a better 
opportunity to respond, more informed opportunity to respond. 

We haven't done that as well we thought we were 
going to do in the past. We've been starting to revise the 
procedures for reporting. And frankly, I think that at the end 
of the fall of this year, when the new data collection 
techniques are in place, we'll be able to give you a read-out on 
trends in fuel prices across the board, and that includes diesal 
as well as gasoline, that will allow you to make a more 
reflective choice, if you will, about legislation that will 
either regulate or influence those prices. 

If your question goes a little bit farther and 
goes to the question of, should those prices be so high, should 
the gasoline producers be able to pass on as much of that cost 


1 as they are, our opinion is that some of those price increases 

2 have been, if you will, profit taking on the part of the 

3 producers, and we think that one way to bring that down in the 

4 future is to give the consumer a little bit more choice to let 

5 them understand what's going on, and make them put the pressure 

6 on the producers by changing their buying habits, so they'll, in 

7 fact, influence the cost in such a way that they come down. 

8 So, while we don't directly regulate those, we 

9 certainly study them. And hopefully, in the end of this year, 

10 our study methodologies will produce a little bit better results 

11 for you. 

12 SENATOR AYALA: We have had a number of 

13 shortages, gasoline, at least at the pumps, anyway. 

14 How far does it go back? Some people blame OPEC 

15 all kinds of explanations. 

16 However, I can give you a little quick story of 

17 what happened many years ago, when we had one of those long 

18 lines at the service station. We had a hearing here in 

19 Sacramento, and a city from the Delta — I forget what city it 

20 was -- but the Chief of Police was here, along with officials, 

21 because the State Allocation Board had given those people more 

22 fuel because they were having a crime problem. And they were 

23 allocated more gas than they were entitled to during that 

24 crisis. 

25 It develops that they were all thrilled because 

26 of the additional fuel, but when they got home, they didn't know 

27 where to put it. Their yard tanks were full. So, a clever 

28 councilman said, we've got a number of service stations that 


have been closed now for quite a while. Why don't we go in and 
put our gas into these empty tanks underground? Every one of 
those tanks were filled to the brim, yet the stations were 

That's what I'm saying. People are confused by, 
yes, there's a shortage all right, we notice it at the pumps, 
but where else is the shortage? I don't really know, and that's 
a matter of record, by the way, what I'm saying. 

All those stations that had closed because of 
lack of gasoline had their tanks in the ground full to the brim, 
and the city couldn't find a place to put their additional fuel 
for police protection. 

I just wonder whether the crises really occur 
when we have one of those shortages. 

MR. MOORE: Senator, I'm unaware of the example 
that you gave, although I'm certainly interested in it. I 
promise you, I'll know more about it by tomorrow than I do 

In terms of the capacity questions that you ask, 
right now we have data, and we maintain a good list of what the 
refining capacity is. We know when there are outages, and we 
know when there is a down period for any given refinery. 

Since that ultimately does influence the price 
and availability of the refined product, the end product, we are 
trying to make that more available, not only in an aggregated 
sense so you can find out -- not you personally -- but so the 
public can identify exactly what refinery is going down and gain 
a competitive advantage. 


1 So, we can identify the trends and know 

2 beforehand when to expect price shocks. That information is 

3 being made more freely available and in a more timely basis to 

4 the Legislature as well. 

5 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

6 MR. MOORE: Thank you, Senator. 

7 SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

8 Anyone in the audience wishing to testify in 

9 behalf of the nominee? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition 

10 or express reservation? 

11 Thank you for being with us today. Unless we 

12 reestablish a quorem, we will have a vote on your confirmation 

13 as well. 

14 MR. MOORE: Thank you, Senator. 

15 [Thereafter, SENATOR AYALA moved 

16 the confirmation, and the final 

17 vote was 5-0 to recommend 

18 confirmation to the Floor.] 

19 SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Thompson, why don't you 

20 come forward. I understand you want to share some information. 

21 SENATOR THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm 

22 sorry I wasn't here when you took up the PUC appointments, but I 

23 did want to come in and mention that, as all the Members know 

24 because of communications I've sent the Committee, I've been 

25 concerned that the PUC has not promulgated regulations as they 

26 were supposed to as a result of this Legislature passing SB 48, 

27 and the Governor signing that will into law a few years ago. 

28 That bill came about because of the 


Dunsmuir-Cantera Loop spill that happened in, I think, it was 
1991. And we passed that legislation right after that. 

I have met with the two Commissioners who were up 
today, and feel confident that they are interested in and will 
be working toward passage or adoption of those regulations. 
And further, that the regulations will be done in such a way 
that they not only address the concerns of this Legislature and 
the Governor, but they're also done in a way that they will hold 
accountable those people who transport potentially dangerous 
materials along our rail lines. 

Having met with both Commissioners and been 
assured that this is what's going to happen, I would urge that 
their appointment be viewed favorably. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Very good, thank you. Senator. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 2:55 P.M.] 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

(J day of 

, 1997 


:lyn^j. mi^ak "J^ 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 335-R when ordering. 


SEP 2 2 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1997 
2:06 P.M. 


Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1997 
2:06 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






The Regents of the University of California 

State Air Resources Board 

Department of Conservation 



Californians Against Waste 


California Association of Resource Conservation Districts 


American Farmland Trust 


Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. 



California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Lahontan Region 


Desert Citizens Against Pollution 


_s Agricultural Labor Relations Board 







Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 


State Air Resources Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Most Difficult Issue 2 

State Implementation Plan 3 

Smog Test Two 4 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Sensitivity to Air Pollution 5 

Children and Smog 6 

Achievements on Board relating to 

Toxic Air Contaminants 7 

Suggestions for Speeding up Process of 

Evaluating and Regulating Toxic 

Compounds 8 

Health Costs from Pollutants 9 

Proposals to Limit Health Hazards of 

Toxic Compounds 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Sudden Deaths versus SIDS 11 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Experience in Research 11 

Suggestions to Speed up Decision Making 12 

Diesel Exhaust 14 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Confidence that Emissions Reduction 

Goals Will Be Met by Smog Check Two 15 

Relationship between the ARB and 

South Coast Air Quality Control Board 15 

Alternatives to Smog Check Two 16 

Discussion of Smog Check Program 17 

Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 20 


Department of Conservation 20 

Introduction by SENATOR JIM COSTA . .' 20 

Background and Experience 21 

Witness with Concerns: 


Calif ornians Against Waste 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Department's Support of Maddy Bill which 

Would Eliminate Curbside Pickups 28 

Current Thoughts on Matters brought up 

by Calif ornians Against Waste 28 

Response by MR. MURRAY . 32 

Rebuttal by MR. GOLDZBAND 34 

Relationship between Market Forces and 
Manufacturers ' Responsibility 36 

Witnesses in Support; 


California Association of Resource 

Conservation Districts 37 


American Farmland Trust 39 


Norcal Waste Systems 40 


Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Disappearance of Agricultural 

Lands in California 45 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Expectations for Improvement of 

Enforcement of SMARA 48 

Decision to Hold Confirmation Vote 

for Another Week 51 


Board of Regents 

University of California 51 

Discussion 51 

Motion Not to Confirm 52 

Committee Action 72 


California Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Lahontan Region 53 

Background and Experience 53 

Witness in Opposition: 


Hi Desert Citizens Against Pollution 60 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Use of Sewer Sludge 64 

Possibility of Conflict of Interest 65 

Negative Declaration that Was Overturned 

by State Board 66 

Questions of MR. TALBOT by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Use of Sludge on Agricultural Lands 68 

Reason for Opposition 68 

Approval of Compost Operation 69 

Motion to Confirm 71 

Committee Action 71 





























Agricultural Labor Relations Board 72 

Background and Experience 72 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possible Changes in Access Rule and 

General Philosophy and Specifics 76 

Possibility of Improving Process Using 
Prehearing Conference 79 

Make Whole Remedies 81 

Backlog of Cases before Board 84 

Role of Board in Recommending 

Reorganizations within System 86 

Contemplated Changes in Administrative 

Structure to Deal with Case Backlogs 86 

How to Fix Problem of Needing Litigator 

to Represent Board in Courts 88 

Use of Budget Request to Hire Additional 
Solicitor to Represent Board 89 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Reason for Decline in Number of Union 
Representation Elections 90 

Position on Reorganization Plan, which 

Would Have Cut One ALJ Position to Half Time 

and Added One Full-time Attorney 91 

Vote on Navarro Case Regarding 

Access Rules 92 

Denial of Access to Union for Purpose of 
Inspecting Toilet Facilities 95 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Response to SENATOR AYALA 's Queston 96 

Reasons for Denial of Access 97 

Conditions of Employment Include 

Adequate Toilet Facilities 98 


Perception of Role as Board Member 99 

Dissented against Majority Vote in 

Four Cases 102 

Questions by SENATOR HILDA SOLIS re: 

Commitment to Not Restrict or Change 

Current Access Rules 104 

Commitment to Not Erode Current Role 105 

Current Caseload in Terms of Backlog 105 

Concern over Backlog of Cases of 

General Counsel 107 

Proposal to Have Seven Statewide Hearings 

to Review Regulations per Executive Order .... 107 

Attendance of Employers at Previous 

Public Hearings 109 

Preference for Sufficient Funding to 

Reduce Caseloads Ill 

Summation by MS . RICHARDSON 112 

Decision to Postpone Vote for One Week 113 

Termination of Proceedings 113 

Certificate of Reporter , 114 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll skip legislation for the 
moment to try to get to accommodate schedules of appointees. 
So, I believe we'll jump to number four on our calendar, 
Dr. William Friedman, Member of the Air Resources Board. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you want to start with any 
comment at all? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Let me just introduce myself. 

My name is William Friedman. I'm a medical 
doctor. My field of specialty is heart disease in infants, 
children, adolescents, pediatric cardiology. 

I came to California in 1968 to start the Medical 
School in San Diego, and in 1979, went to UCLA to be the 
Chairman of Pediatrics and to receive the endowed Chair in 
Pediatric Cardiology. Served for 15 years in that capacity, 
became the senior advisor to the dean and provost, and I've just 
been appointed the Academic Dean of the UCLA School of 

I view my assistance to the work of the Air 
Resources Board to be in the area of defining health concerns, 
looking at the science that is offered up to base decisions 
upon, and looking at the manner in which the Board supports and 
proposes research. 

If I can answer any questions, I'll be happy to 
do so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. Let me ask Members 
if there are any questions? 

Perhaps I'll start. You've served now for 
several months on the Board? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, I have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Since last December. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Actually, I think January, but 
it's enough. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was the most difficult 
issue that's come before you in that time? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, frankly. Senator, it reminds 
me of being a freshman medical student. The most difficult 
thing is learning a new vocabulary, very seriously. There's so 
many initials. 

I have read volumes of material sent to me before 
each meeting. Some of the most interesting have involved health 
directly. The issue of lead in the air, for example, was one 
that I was particularly interested in because I've be dealing 
with lead intoxication since about 1960, when I was at Johns 
Hopkins. It was a hotbed of lead intoxication. So, for a 
personal point of view, that's been the most interesting. 

But the growth — the slope of my understanding 
of what the issues are has been so steep, and I don't expect it 
to end for a long time. It's a new field for me, the biology of 
pollution, and it's what interested me about serving in the 
first place. At my age, you don't get an opportunity to learn 
something really new too often. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other than the learning curve 

issues, there's no particular debate that was before the Board 
this year that was a close call that you'd want to tell us 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I don't think there has been. 
I've spent a lot of time traveling around, seeing the research 
being done about air pollution at UC Davis, and USC, UC Irvine, 
and also visiting some of the ongoing research programs seeking 
to define health. 

With respect to specific issues, there hasn't 
been remarkably contentious issues. The Board has tended to 
more or less agree on most of the things in front of them, and 
there's been an awful lot of informational items, nonremarkable 
action items thus far. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you participated in 
discussions of the State Implementation Plan and its specifics, 
or did that predate? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: As you know, the Implementation 
Plan, I guess, goes back to about 1994. I've been learning a 
lot about it, since everything we do, or if we alter anything, 
often there is a requirement to alter the SIP. 

. Of course, now with the federal EPA, our 
compliance — I think that we're well within the compliance. 
Our state is much more rigorous, in fact, than most of the 
federal legislation. 

But I haven't been conversant with, nor am I yet, 
on what I keep reading in the papers, though. Various groups 
will have one or another problem with one or another part of the 
SIP. The SIP seeks, I think, to just protect us all. And if 

there has to be a change, it needs to be based on very solid 
science and evidence. 

But I'm not -- I've seen the SIP. I have it in 
my office. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You haven't had to make 
choices yet about changes in it, and what trade-offs would be 

DR. FRIEDMAN: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Has there been active 
discussion of Smog Test Two at the Board level? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: There's not been active discussion 
at all. We are in receipt of communications about what the 
concerns are of the Legislature, of the people who are doing 
repairs, of the consumer and all that, but it hasn't reached us, 
nor have I received a full sort of pros/cons implications type 
of communication yet to allow any sort of intelligence about the 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's my understanding that the 
staff, at least, have been involved in negotiations with the ■ 
Legislature to make changes in the current program. 

If that's true, it would seem odd not to seek 
Board approval and direction for those efforts. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I think that they're working 
I may misspeak. 

I believe that they are working with the people 
who are most unhappy with Smog Check Two to see how much 
commonality there can be to avoid important contentiousness. 

Buf I think that my own understanding is that 

there will be time to bring that to full discussion of the 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 
Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I see, according to your resume, 
Doctor, that you are a graduate of Columbia University? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Columbia College, yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Medical school. 

Did you go to high school in New York? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I was born in Brooklyn, and I went 
to high school at Jamaica High School when we moved to the 
country; when we moved to Queens. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I used to live in that country, 
too, in Queens. I detected a little culture in your accent. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: And I appreciate it. You make 
me feel at home. 

I don't know about you, but with me, I had a 
great problem understanding things like smog, and air pollution, 
not realizing that had been born and raised in it. And I wasn't 
as sensitive as I should have been until I came to California, 
where I really saw what it was all about, because as we looked 
up in the jungles and finally reached what we found out was sky, 
through all of the high rises, I really wasn't aware until I 
moved to do suburbs of New York City about what that smog was 
all about. 

So, I think here in California, my point is that 
we are more conscious, not being raised in the jungles of a 


large city, of the pollution of our air. 

This bothers me a great deal because in my 
district/ I have some areas in my community that, because of the 
topography of the cities and their location, have a lot of 
problems with smog. 

In your practice as a pediatrician, did you have 
a private practice? I understand you're doing academic medicine 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I have all my life, but I have 
always had a large private practice of pediatric cardiology, 
people from all over the world. 

But you were about to ask me a question about 
children and smog? 


DR. FRIEDMAN: I have been about as vigorous an 
advocate for public health and for child health as probably most 
anybody in the state. I'm particularly concerned because kids 
tend to be the most fragile, and sometimes the most labile 
amongst us. 

I'm encouraged that there's recognition, at least 
on the part of the ARB people that I keep talking to, that if we 
aim, if you will, at the most vulnerable populations with 
respect to air quality, that will include children. I mean, you 
could talk about the deleterious effects of smog on a 
seven-year-old, but the most sensitive individual may be the 
64-year-old with severe coronary artery disease or emphysema. 
So, if you protect that most vulnerable person, you'll also be 
creating a floor of security probably for all the children. 

But it remains to be seen. I mean, I will 
continuously look at the data to see if it is appropriate in 
terms of that element, of that dimension. That's what I do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So that you're concerned about 
both age groups, from the very young to the elderly. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. 

SENATOR HUGHES: In your position on the 
commission, what have you done since you've been a member of 
this commission to look at toxic air contaminants? What policy 
areas have you pursued? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: As I said earlier, I have visited 
those studies which are in progress to determine for myself what 
the validity of approach and current findings are, and all the 
longitudinal studies of child health with respect to air 
quality. It's taken a considerable amount of time and a 
considerable amount of visits. 

In terms of my own — what I've promulgated as a 
Board member, I've asked and have received a good reception. I 
want us to be able to figure out the equations to use so that we 
know what the costs will be of ill health should it occur, to 
balance against what the cost will be to business to fix the 

I've been working on a monthly basis with our 
research division to try to get some national experts together 
to address this problem so that the Board can use this as part 
of their deliberations in the future. 

I've also spent a lot of time looking at the 
research thrust of the ARB. I've been involved with granting 


agencies, federal, American Heart Association. I've been in 
charge of those organizations with respect to their grant 
program, and we've been working on a variety of ways to allow 
the Board members to understand best the justification, the 
budget justifications for the grants that are granted to foster 
better health and better air. 

And those three things have really occupied a 
significant amount of time so far. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You bring unique expertise, 
coming from the field of medicine. And I would expect that you 
should be about the business of leadership in terms of 
cautioning members about the harmful effects in terms of birth 
defects or cancers that our constituents would be subject to. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I think that's entirely correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: As you have probably observed, 
and as we've all observed over a period of time, it takes a long 
time to make changes. 

Do you have any suggestions on how we speed up 
this process of evaluating and regulating toxic compounds? 
Because this research might not be done for another ten years, 
and how many lives will we have lost in the meantime? I'm sure 
you're more up to date than any of us in this room. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I wish I had an answer for 
you, but that is precisely the underlying background for why 
I've asked for the sort of analysis which will let us know that 
if we let things delay, or get things in a delay mode, or a 
protractive mode, I want to know what the health cost really is, 
both in terms of health and in terms of the cost of ill health. 


I don't know -- I really am not a politician/ so 
I don't how to goose the system effectively in one way or 
another, but I do know if you keep banging on the need to 
accelerate answers in one or another area, you'll eventually -- 
you'll do better. 

I have no facility. I don't understand yet the 
full manner in which all of the elements come together to make a 
new regulation, or new rule, or whatever. I just plan to work 
as hard as I can to identify what can be done in a reasonable 
time frame. 

I don't want us to accept bad science or bad 
ideas, either, because I think you pay for that, perhaps, longer 
than for, you know, rushing in. It's a delicate balance. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you not feel a sense of 
urgency as a physician, since you have a number of lives 

Now, you talk about the cost, then you sound more 
like a businessman than a physician. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: No, when I mention cost, I said it 
in two ways. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You mean health costs? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Exactly. One is the cost — I 
mean, my whole life is to take care of people. 


DR. FRIEDMAN: So, it's cost in terms of human 
health, and it also is cost in terms of financial 
considerations, because those do form the basis for certain 
specific decisions. And it's fair to show both the cost of 


fixing the air and the cost of not fixing it, so you have some 
notion of where you stand. 

But it's not a financial equation. It's a human 
equation, in my opinion. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Since you've been on the Board, 
what kinds of regulatory measures would you like to see proposed 
or would you like to support to limit the kind of health hazards 
of toxic compounds? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, there are a bunch of things 
coming down the pike. By next fall, I guess, or spring, we're 
going to be talking about diesel fuel. I mean, that's a major 

I have not yet -- I have about this much paper on 
my desk to read to get up to speed on that, but I think that's 
going to be a major issue with respect to carcinogenisis, and 
lung disease, and all the rest of it. 

I think that the issue now, especially since the 
federal government has changed the particulate size that we have 
to be concerned about from PM 10 to PM 2.5, that we're going to 
have to really understand what that means in terms of control, 
regulation, and so forth. PM 10, those are particles that are 
about the size of a single red blood cell. PM 2.5, which is 
submicroscopic, is going to require a much more comprehensive — 
much more research and much more action. 

And, you know, it seems on the surface that these 
compounds, these particulate compounds, are specifically related 
to sudden death. So, we have to be very serious about that. 
That's coming. That's on the agenda of things -- 


1 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You said sudden death, meaning 

2 SIDS or people dying? 

3 DR. FRIEDMAN: Not SIDS. It's people dying 

4 prematurely. It's calculated -- and again, this is from what I 

5 have read so far -- that episodes of remarkable particulate 

6 matter infestation are associated in every instance with a 

7 sudden jump in sudden death in people of all ages. 

8 The SIDS problem is sudden infant death, and 

9 that's a — 

10 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Neurological, or whatever? 

11 DR. FRIEDMAN: It's probably a combination of 

12 cardiac, cerebral, all sorts of things. 

13 So, those are the two major issues which are 

14 going to be in front of the Board in this next year or so. 

15 Others, I mean, you know, I came late to the 

16 business of low emission vehicles, and zero emission vehicles, 

17 this and that. I just want to drive one. I've got to understand 

18 it first. 

19 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They go pretty fast, but you 

20 need a long cord. 

21 [Laughter. ] 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: Doctor, have you in your medical 

23 experience had a battle with trying to cure some illnesses in 

24 your pediatric practice where you have had to do a lot of 

25 personal research into the literature, and research with your 

26 colleagues to solve some of these problems because you were 

27 concerned with changing a child's quality of health? 

28 DR. FRIEDMAN: Senator, I am the recipient of the 


Distinguished Scientific Achievement Award of the American Heart 
Association. I have been fortunate enough, and lucky enough, 
to have done some really interesting things that you and your 
husband would love to know about. I mean, they've really been 
wonderful for children. 

I introduced echocardiography to pediatrics. 
I discovered a substitute for heart surgery in premature babies 
that spares over 100,000 babies a year from having an 
Operation . 

I have defined how the heart develops with 
respect to its nerve supply, its function, its embryology. And 
as a result, have come up with new ways to try to interfere with 
the process -- the consequences of bad health. 

The first research I ever did was to discover a 
new disease and find out what caused it, which is an unusual 
thing to do . It's usual that people don't do that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, I think that's wonderful, 
and I am very proud to meet you and to know that you've done 
these things. 

And I hope that you transfer your professional 
enthusiasm, in terms of keeping people healthy, on this 
commission that you serve on, in terms of seeing how you're 
going to keep Calif ornians healthier than we presently are. 

Do you have any idea how you can speed up this 
process? The whole process of decision making, in terms of 
policies, of what contaminants we allow to still exist, and what 
contaminants we're going to go exclude from happening in our 


The reason I push on this so hard is because I am 
under the impression, and have gotten information, that diesel 
exhaust and toxic air occurs in higher incidents in communities 
like I represent, in the lower income communities, where the 
people don't have access to newer cars that have less 
contaminated emissions and things like that. 

So, you are the physician who is doing the 
research. You are ahead of all of your colleagues in a way, 
because you know about the bad effects of this. 

What kind of leadership can we look to you for in 
this coming year as you debate all these toxic contaminants? 
And you, knowing better than anything of us what the negative 
consequence can be, to speed up the process the same way that 
you did to find this information about a new disease in 
pediatrics, and a cure, and a treatment? 

What are going to do in terms of your leadership 
in helping us to solve some of these problems? Because, we're 
really looking for leadership. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Senator, all I can promise you is 
that I will be as forceful an advocate as I possibly can be for 
the acceleration of the information that's needed to make some 
changes. . 

I think that everybody is mindful of the hot 
spots problem that you've just alluded to. And I think that we 
need an across-the-board reduction in all that's unhealthful. 

I know that we're studying this currently. It 
has not come to the fore yet, but people -- I have been very 
impressed with the people on the ARB who are out there, trying 


to get the information together to allow people to make 
decisions, and to start the process that may make changes. 

All I can promise you is, because I am not a 
shrinking violet, that I will be as forceful an advocate for 
public health and child health as I possibly can be. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Were you aware of the fact that 
diesel exhaust has not been presented to your Board — 


SENATOR HUGHES: — as a toxic air contaminant? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. As I mentioned a little 
while ago, it's on the calendar for presentation this, the year 
that we're in, so it will be coming in front of us. It has not 
come in front of us yet. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When that discussion comes up, 
will you be -- 

DR. FRIEDMAN: You betcha. 

SENATOR HUGHES: -- equipped to lead the fight? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I hope so. Literally, 
there's this much in reading material. I've actually read a 
fair amount of it so far, but there's going to be a lot more 
before this comes in front of us. It's dangerous stuff. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'm very glad that you're there, 
and I expect you to lead the charge. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: You've made me. I'm ready. 



SENATOR AYALA: Dr. Friedman, Senator Brulte and 
myself represent the west end of the County of San Bernardino, 


1 probably the smoggiest area in the country due to the auto 

2 emissions, not necessarily stationary sources. 

3 I'm concerned about the new smog check, as a lot 

4 of people are. It's very controversial. 

5 Based on results to date, how confident are you 

6 that the emissions reduction goal for this new test will be 

7 realized? 

8 Before you do that, can you tell me the 

9 relationship between the ARE and South Coast Air Basin? What's 

10 the relationship there? 

11 DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I mean, we have heard from 

12 the South Coast. We have heard from, reporting to us, have been 

13 the deliberations of the South Coast. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: Are you directly involved with 

15 the South Coast Air Basin? 

16 DR. FRIEDMAN: No, I'm not. 

17 SENATOR AYALA: We do have a statewide new 

18 program for checking smog. How confident are you that that's 

19 going to work, and what evidence do you have of that? 

20 DR. FRIEDMAN: I must tell you, I'm not an 

21 expert. I mean, clearly, smog check is designed to remove X 

22 amount, X tons, from our air of volatile organic compounds and 

23 so forth and so on. 

24 The controversy about smog check, as I understand 

25 it currently, and this has not been discussed on the Air Board, 

26 so my information comes from newspapers and conversations, is 

27 whether or not the smog check should be modified. And if it's 

28 modified, how should it be modified at, hopefully, no loss to 


the people of removing bad things from the air. 

I mean, I think that everybody would like to see 
a smog check system that is both consumer friendly and friendly 
to the people who are doing the checks. 

To me, until I see what's involved, and what the 
scientific basis is, my concern is that we don't modify smog 
check to an extent that does not remove pollutants from the 
air. Because if we do that, we have to go back and find some 
other way to remove pollutants. And that gets involved with 
Senator Lockyer's question about the State Implementation Plan 
and other changes. 

SENATOR AYALA: That was my next question. If 
the smog check program doesn't live up to expectations, what do 
you think ought to be done? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: You mean if it does' not? 

SENATOR AYALA: Absent that program, what is 

DR. FRIEDMAN: There is a smog check program in 
place, and there must be some calculations, I'm not aware of 
them, of what the rationale was, what the expected removal of 
pollutants was going to be. And that can be checked with 
sensors all over the place to see if we've accomplished that. 
If we have not accomplished it, then we'd better find out why 

If we change smog check, and we find an increase, 
then we have done ourselves a terrible disservice. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is there a plan to back up the 
current program if it doesn't live up to expectations? Are we 


just waiting to see if it's going to work or not before we do 
something to back it up? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I wish I was more knowledgeable 
and could answer you in the affirmative, but I just don't know 
the answer. And it may just be because I'm still -- even though 
I've been on for a few months, a novice on these issues. I 
don't have an answer. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're aware enough of the 
program to think it will work the way it's supposed to? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: No, I am not that aware of the 
results of the program. 

I believe that the program has achieved an 
important reduction in air pollution. 

My concern is, as we try to balance what our 
citizens want -- convenience, cost -- and what the folks who fix 
cars to make them less pollutant — 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think this program has 
achieved certain success already? 

DR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I believe that it has 
importantly reduced smog in the state. Whether a modification 
may change that for the better or the worse — 

SENATOR AYALA: When will we get to that point? 

DR. FRIEDM7\N: I don't know. I truly don't 

I understood -- isn't smog check, it's a 
legislative issue currently, isn't it, whether it should be 
changed or not? Or has it already — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes, it was a plan developed 

by ARB. The implementing legislation was enacted. The program 
was begun and enforcement activities undertaken. Controversy 
broke out, and it's been modestly changed legislatively. For 
example, making clear that autos couldn't be confiscated was a 
change in the law. There was some ambiguity about that issue in 
the original statute. 

And it continues. Tomorrow, in fact, there will 
be a hearing with three bills before the Senate Transportation 
Committee. I think Senator Ayala still serves on that. So, 
they'll be hearing additional reform proposals here tomorrow. 

I just think we'd like to have our work be 
informed by your expertise whenever possible. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I wish I had specific answers. 

My general impression from the months that I've 
been on the Board is that smog check, the program itself, has 
been one of the pivotal things that has really helped to clear 
the air. 

But I'm not conversant enough with what some 
changes may do to the program. You know, if I can get that 
information, or get it back to you, I ' d be happy to make an 
effort to do that. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to have that 
information, because I get a lot of calls regarding this 
particular program. 

DR. FRIEDMAN: I will make sure that we get back 
to you. 

SENATOR AYALA: I know you have a real difficult 
program or position, trying to balance ecology with economy, but 


1 that we must do. We can't leave people without jobs -- 

2 DR. FRIEDMAN: That's part of our charge, I 

3 think, to the Board, is to provide that balance. 

4 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. Doctor. 

5 DR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, and I will get that 

6 information to your office. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: TVny further questions? 

8 Is there anyone with us who would care to testify 

9 on the confirmation? 

10 I'll note that we have received no letters of 

11 opposition, so I think this is one we can move forward on 

12 quickly. 

13 Doctor, the letters that we have on file from 

14 peers and others that know you are highly complimentary, both as 

15 to your clinical commitment and scholarly work. It would seem 

16 to be one of the outstanding appointments that the Governor has 

17 made. 

18 Senator Brulte. 


20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have motion to confirm. 

21 Call the roll, please. 

22 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


24 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


2 6 SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


28 SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 


DR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you 
all, and I'll take that very seriously. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Keep up the good work, sir. 

The next one we have would be Mr. Goldzband, 
Director of Conservation. 

Would you please call Senator Sher's office? He 
wanted to be with us for this discussion. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Costa, did you want to 

SENATOR COSTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 
and Members of the Rules Committee. 

As you have before you Mr. Larry Goldzband, who's 
up for confirmation as the Director of Conservation, as many of 
you may know, I've had a long interest in the preservation and 
protection of prime agricultural lands in California. 

We have attempted in different ways in this state 
to try to pursue policies that would protect and preserve prime 
agricultural land, the Williamson Act, the Agricultural Land 
Stewardship Program, and I've worked with him on some other 
areas as well. 

I think that I have found in the years, both in 


1 the Department and before, that Mr. Goldzband is problem 

2 solver. I think he believes that land use planning is primarily 

3 the responsibility, as we all know, of local government. 

4 But I think he is also very concerned that there 

5 are broader state interests in land uses that need to be focused 

6 on and dealt with. 

7 For example, we've had two audits in two separate 

8 counties in my district dealing with the Williamson Act on 

9 subvention claims. One was found -- one of the audits performed 

10 by he and the Department — to be doing a good job. The other 

11 county was found to be doing a job that needed some work, and 

12 suggested some changes. And so, we are attempting to address 

13 those concerns as it relates to one of the counties. 

14 But I think that what's important to note is we 

15 need to make sure that the state law is upheld, and certainly in 

16 the application of this particular example that I've given you, 

17 I found Mr. Goldzband to be focused on trying to ensure that the 

18 law, in fact, was upheld. 

19 That is really, in brief, my comments. I have 

20 another meeting to go to, but I know that this Rules Committee, 

21 as you do in all matters, will closely scrutinize the conduct 

22 and the ability of the individual and render your best 

23 judgment. So, I want to thank you. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Senator. 

25 Okay, Mr. Goldzband. Do you want to start with 
2 6 any comment? 

27 MR. GOLDZBAND: I ' d be happy to. 

28 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 


Committee. I want to thank you for your time, and I want to 
thank you and your staff as well for getting me through this 
process and informing me of what I needed to do. 

I asked Senator Costa to introduce me because I 
am particularly proud of the Department's work to preserve farm 
land in the State of California through the Williamson Act for 
the near term, and through the ALSP program in the long term. 

I expect that a number of you, including Senator 
Sher, will have questions prepared regarding the Department's 
implementation of the beverage container recycling law. As 
such, I thought I would spend a couple minutes up front to let 
you know of my thoughts on the current program. 

First, I fully support the principles which 
underlie the program. We should reduce litter. We should 
reduce demand for landfill space, and as such, we should aim for 
the highest possible recycling rate. Recycling is a pervasive 
ethic throughout the California culture, and we should support 
that ethic. 

Second, the issue of manufacturers' 
responsibility, which was initiated a decade ago when the bill 
was first passed, continues to be an important part of the 
program. I don't question whether manufacturers' 
responsibility will continue to be part of the program, but I do 
wonder how it should be carried out, and how efficient we can 
make that process. 

Third, I think the convenience really is perhaps 
the biggest key to making the recycling program work well. 
Consumers should simply not have to work that hard to recycle 


1 their containers. 

2 Fourth, the local conservation corps have become 

3 valuable participants in the recycling process. We are working 

4 with them now to solidify a real and really a quantitative nexus 

5 between the monies they get from the program and the work they 

6 perform. We want to ensure that the local's entrepreneurial 

7 spirit is not limited by the program. 

8 And finally, as we work with the program 

9 stakeholders and all of you in the Legislature to gain consensus 

10 around the program's reauthorization, I think we should keep 

11 those principles in mind as we attempt to stabilize and, if 

12 possible, simplify the program, while ensuring that we build 

13 upon Californians ' desire to recycle their beverage containers, 

14 and working through the process to do so. 

15 With regard to the Surface Mining and Reclamation 

16 Act, I'm pleased to tell you that we're implementing a fair and 

17 tough enforcement strategy, which I announced in April, to 

18 ensure that mines in California will be reclaimed without public 

19 funding after their productive lives are over. 

20 And we've also secured funding, thanks to the 

21 Governor and the Legislature, to increase the local government's 

22 knowledge of where minerals are, so that they can account for 

23 their presence in local general plans, and working with a wide 

24 variety of stakeholders to identify and make sure we have a 

25 reliable inventory of abandoned mines. 

26 We've worked with local governments, Sonoma 

27 County, to clean up the Geysers. We have presented testimony 

28 this spring to ensure the California Earthquake Authority 


implements a rate structure which is fair to all Calif ornians . 

In short, the Department's doing a lot of, I 
think, very, very good work. 

Having been a former legislative staffer, a 
former gubernatorial aid, having been regulated as part of the 
gas and electric utility industry, and now as a department 
director, I know how difficult it can be to gain consensus 
around programs on difficult issues. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues in 
the administration, with all of you, with the rest of the 
Legislature, with all of our stakeholders to present legislation 
to the Governor which he would want to sign. To do otherwise 
would be simply a waste of all of our time. 

So, I look forward to accomplishing a great deal 
more during the next 16 months. I hope to continue to work with 
you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there people present who 
wish to testify either for or against? Yes. 

MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, Members, Mark Murray 
with Californians Against Waste. 

I apologize for just lying to you. Senator. I'm 
not here to either support or oppose Mr. Goldzband. 

Californians Against Waste is the sponsor of 
California's bottling can recycling law. We've been involved in 
the implementation of it over the course of the past decade. 

The bottle bill program is the largest 
programmatic responsibility that the Department of Conservation 
has. Over the past six years, the program has achieved a 75 


1 percent recycling rate of beverage containers. Analyses by both 

2 the Department of Conservation and for the U.S. Environmental 

3 Protection Agency have called the program the most cost 

4 effective program of its kind in the country. Additional 

5 studies have said that it's reduced litter, it's helped -- it's 

6 had a positive, net positive impact on employment and the 

7 economy. No other program, no other material, no other private 

8 sector initiative has achieved the same level of recycling 

9 success as this program. 

10 So, it's really, despite the success, somewhat 

11 mystifying to us that over the course of the last six months, 

12 the Department of Conservation has pursued an agenda that 

13 appears to be intent on dismantling this program and undermining 

14 its success. 

15 Just to maybe summarize a few of those items, in 

16 April, the Department of Conservation, a letter with Mr. 

17 Goldzband's name it, although it was signed by a deputy 

18 director, used false and misleading claims to justify opposing 

19 legislation to add new beverage containers to the program. And 

20 that was legislation to implement previous Department of 

21 Conservation recommendations, Deukmejian era Department of 

22 Conservation recommendations. 

23 Earlier this year, the Department issued but has 

24 failed to comment on a report that contains radical 

25 recommendations to repeal much of the program, including the 

26 manufacturers' responsibility provisions that Mr. Goldzband 

27 spoke of. Also calls for eliminating funds for curbside 

28 recycling programs, as well as for local conservation corps. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where did that come from? 

MR. MURRAY: This was a study that was paid for 
the by the Department of Conservation. The New Point Group 
Study that the Department -- it's kind of out there, but there 
hasn't really been -- and maybe it's to Mr. Goldzband's credit, 
there hasn't been much comment from the Department of 
Conservation on the recommendations in that study. 

The Department is also sponsoring legislation, 
SB 1157, which would repeal the entire program, effective 
January 1, 1999. 

In general, both today and in previous statements 
and in written statements from the Department of Conservation 
over last several months, the Department has made general 
criticisms of the program, calling for comprehensive reform and 
overhaul of the existing program. 

Now, we can't figure out why this is necessary. 
And we'd be last persons to suggests, last organization to 
suggest that this program is perfect, but we're having a 
difficult time figuring out where the Department of Conservation 
is coming from, where Mr. Goldzband is coming from. 

Had several conversations with Mr. Goldzband, 
raising our concerns with him. Most of them very pleasant 
conversations. He's a very charming individual. And all of 
them have been positive conservations. He's very charming. 

About a month ago, we had a conversation. I 
again summarized our concerns. At that time, Mr. Goldzband said 
that he thought they were appropriate issues to be raising, that 
he'd get back to me. I've summarized those concerns again in a 


1 letter to him. 

2 The only response we've received is a copy of Mr 

3 Goldzband's letter to Senator Sher, which responds to some of 

4 those issues. And frankly, the response is inadequate, and it 

5 still leaves -- the primary question is, does Mr. Goldzband 

6 support the positions that the Department of Conservation has 

7 staked out over the course of the last six months? If he does 

8 support those positions, why? What's the basis for calling for 

9 the overhaul of the program, and the repeal, frankly, as 

10 proposed in the Department's legislation? 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's carrying it? 

12 MR. MURRAY: Senator Maddy's carrying that 

13 legislation. The legislation did not move out of its first 

14 policy committee. 

15 I can speak to some of the specifics, get into 

16 the details of the specifics. Our concerns are not process 

17 oriented. They really are substantive. 

18 The Department has taken some very I would 

19 describe radical positions that call for really making changes, 

20 significant changes, to a program that has been doing pretty 

21 darn good over the past decade. I'm hard pressed to think of, 

22 with all due respect to the Legislature, another program that 

23 has had the level of success in such a short period of time as 

24 the state's bottle and can recycling law. 

25 And if the new Director would like to make an 

26 overhaul of that program, we'd like to know why, and we'd like 

27 to know where he's going before he's confirmed for that 

28 position. 


If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to 
attempt to answer them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there a reason any time 
someone says, "with all due respect," it's followed by a 
disrespectful comment. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Stay where you are. 

Let me ask, you heard the various concerns, 
support of the Maddy bill, or more significantly, its content 
which would repeal the program or eliminating curbside pickups, 
or whatever. 

What are your current thoughts about those 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Let me say that the one thing 
that the Department of Conservation really wants to do is build 
on the successes of the current program. 

But there really has not been a top-to-bottom' 
review of the program and how it's working, really from A to Z, 
in the ten years that it actually has occurred, where it's 
actually been in existence. 

There's no doubt that in some respects it's been 
a tremendous success. We actually had, until this year, an 81 
percent recycle rate overall of beverage containers, although 
that did drop this past year. Nobody knows why. It did so 
nationally, actually. 

So, what the Department of Conservation is trying 
to say is, okay, let's take a look at the program from not only 
a macro perspective, but also a micro perspective. What can we 


1 do to make this program work better? Are there alternative ways 

2 of thinking inside and outside the box about how to get beverage 

3 containers out of landfills and off the streets better than we 

4 are now? 

5 And so, that was the purpose of my predecessor's 

6 decision to have a study. And that study came out in the -- 

7 actually in mid-winter this year, a couple months after I was 

8 there. 

9 We've had at least one stakeholder workshop to 

10 talk about what the study wants to do. But all it is is a 

11 study, and it's a study by a group of people. It's not the 

12 Department's. It's not the Department's position. 

13 Let me say two things about the study which I 

14 think are really, I think, positive. 

15 Number one, it has incited a great deal of 

16 discussion about the program. To me, that's good, because the 

17 program needs to be reauthorized by the end of this year — 

18 excuse me, by the end of next year -- and the stakeholders are 

19 talking about what should happen, and how we can try to make the 

20 program better, and what successes we can build upon the current 

21 program, and what needs to be changed or what should be changed. 

22 The second thing is that what we try to do, and 

23 the way, I must admit, I tried to work this, and certainly I'll 

24 take -- you know, just because my chief deputy signed the 

25 letter, it's the Department's letter, and I'm more than happy to 

26 do that. I'll take that. I was out of the state at the time. 

27 What we're trying to do literally is put 

28 everything on the table. Let's have a good, honest, fair, great 


discussion about what's going on out there and what we can learn 
from other places to try to make this work even better. And 
what good ideas are out on the table. 

The New Points Study is one idea. My bet is that 
Mark has seven or eight of his own that are probably pretty darn 
good. My bet is that manufacturers and recyclers and so on have 
their own ideas. 

So, what we're trying to do is essentially get 
everybody around the table, have an iterative process and work 
through these issues. 

I guess I'd finish the answer to the question by 
saying that the Green Bay Packers won the NFL Superbowl earlier 
this year, but then they probably did a top-to-bottom review of 
the best team in football and decided how they could get better 
by looking at their strengths, their weaknesses, the 
opportunities, the threats that they had. 

We're doing the same thing. And the Packers have 
changed their team a little bit this year, and we're wondering 
whether we should change ours. 


MR. GOLDZBAND: Ishmael, I think, they traded, as 
well as -- I'm sorry. 

What we're trying to figure out essentially is 
how we can take -- there are a whole lot of issues. For 
example, we at this point have $68 million in the recycling — 
in the beverage container fund. And the bill which reauthorized 
the program two years ago, SB 1178, one of the things that it 
was trying to do is literally try to reduce that fund. 


1 Well, the fund's actually grown a little bit 

2 larger, and even if we hadn't had recycling rates go down, we'd 

3 still have something like $45 million in this fund. 

4 So, one of my desires is to try, if the money 

5 comes in from the unredeemed containers, let's get it out and 

6 see what we can do with it. And one of the things that we're 

7 trying to figure out with our nonprofit grant program is how we 

8 can create jobs. Let's work with the Trade and Commerce Agency 

9 and their economic development packages to try to figure out who 

10 out there can qualify for grants which can actually leverage the 

11 program and create jobs in the state. 

12 We're trying -- but to have a $68 million fund, 

13 which is just sort of sitting there, doesn't really help the 

14 consumers. 

15 One of the other issues, one of the other ways 

16 we're trying to figure this out is, we have a program which — 

17 whose budget is going down at this point because of the SB 1178. 

18 About a quarter or so of its budget will be reduced within the 

19 next year or so over that three-year span. But we're still 

20 spending about $20 million a year running this program. And to 

21 me, that seems like a lot of money. 

22 It seems to me that what we ought to try to 

23 figure out is, how we can make the program ensure that we have a 

24 high number of containers that come and have a great recycling 

25 rate, but spend less money doing it. To me, that would be a 
2 6 worthwhile goal. 

27 We also, of course, it almost goes without 

28 saying, we want to see if we can use market forces to do so, 


because the market -- we hope that we can capture some of those 
market forces and see if we can reduce those funds. So, that's 
what we mean by making the program more efficient. 

I don't have the answer. I don't know exactly 
what the final result will be. But I know that if we get the 
stakeholders around the table, that we should be able to figure 
out something. And the only way you can do that is with 
consensus, because we wouldn't want to go, you know, with the 
Legislature unless we had a consensus, getting something to the 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you hear anything that you 
would want to ask specifically what was meant, Mark? 

Don't make a statement. Did you hear anything 
that you'd specifically want to ask, what do you mean by? 

MR. MURRAY: I guess the thing I'd want to ask 
is, have you taken a good look at the history of the program and 
the history of the legislation, because frankly, you've made 
some comments that suggest that you haven't. 

The program has been overhauled on a couple of 
occasions. The program has been thoroughly reviewed on several 
occasions. Department of Conservation studies, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in Department of Conservation studies over 
the last decade. And recommendations and changes to the program 
have been made. That's always in order, and we never — and we 
don't question that. 

What we're questioning is the Department of 
Conservation, for the first time, exercising some extremely 
strong positions about the need for changing a program that has 


been working for last decade. 

So, we've proposed changes to the program this 
year. The program does not sunset next year. There is no need 
for legislation in this program. 

There are those that would like to change the 
program, and there are •■probably some positive things that could 
be done to modify this program. 

But we've got a Department of Conservation that's 
coming forward and saying, the program needs to be overhauled. 
The program needs to be reformed. 

And I am still struggling to try and find what is 
the basis for that need. 

If Mr. Goldzband would like facilitators and have 
an open process, I think that's great. Our concern is that the 
Department of Conservation is coming into this with an agenda, 
and that the root of that agenda is to overhaul. I perceive 
that, based on the legislation that the Department is 
sponsoring, to be a euphemism for repeal of provisions of this 
program. That's my concern. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When is the sunset? 

MR. MURRAY: The program does not sunset. This 
program never sunsets. It will be with us forever. 

MR. GOLDZBTVND: It reverts back. 

MR. MURRAY: Yes, the program will go back to its 
original legislative intent at the end of next year. 

As you will recall, Senator O'Connell carried 
legislation. Senator O'Connell, when he carried that 
legislation that utilized part of this reserve that 


Mr. Goldzband spoke of, wanted that legislation to be a longer 
fix. Proposed a five-year fix. 

Projections from the Department of Conservation 
suggested that that couldn't happen, and in fact it would only 
-- we could only fix it for three years. The Department of 
Conservation's projections were wrong. I'm sure that Senator 
O'Connell would be pleased to have extended his legislation for 
a longer period of time. 

But the bottom line is, the program doesn't need 
any legislation at all next year. 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Anything there that would help 
us be better informed? 

MR. G0LDZB7\ND: I'd respond this way. 

First of all, I think one of the fun things about 
being a department director is that one can exercise a little 
bit of leadership and management in trying move a department, 
trying to work with people in the department. 

I that think one of the things that we want from 
the Department of Conservation is to be a leader in recycling, 
and to be a department which consumers in the State of 
California can be proud of. 

So, there is a reason why we're not only 
facilitating, but we will most likely be — we will be working 
with people to try to get a solution to this issue. 

The sunset, which actually occurs, is really — I 
guess it's not a sunset in the technical sense. It will be with 
us, but it ends at the end of next year, and it goes back to the 
previous bill. 


We've had about 40 or so changes to the program 
in the past ten years, and every three years or so, we seem to 
all go around. I must admit, I wasn't here the last time. I 
wasn't here the time before that either. But everybody seems to 
try to get around the table and try to sort of do their own 
little fix, you know, because each person has, or each 
stakeholder has his or her interest. 

And so, what we're trying to do is say, let's 
step back. Let's leave our six shooters at the door. Let's go 
in, and let's try to figure out how we can provide more 
stability to the program so that every three years it doesn't 
change like this. And we think we can do that by making it a 
little more transparent in terms of using market forces. 

I think the way I'd probably end in answering 
Mark is, that as far as I know, there is no -- I mean, I 
certainly don't have a hidden agenda which says repeal the 

One of the things that we did in the Maddy bill 
is to say, let's just, you know, let's get everybody to the 
table. So, we're not going to have a preconceived notion about 
what's going to happen when everybody goes to the table, and 
what result we would work with the Legislature to get. And we 
don't want a preconceived notion. We're not necessarily sure 
the stakeholders have preconceived notions, so let's start with 
a clean slate. 

That was the purpose of the legislation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does the notion of greater 
alliance on market forces affect things like the manufacturers' 


responsibility or recycling fees for glass? Is there a 

MR. GOLDZBAND: There can be, I think, if you 
want there to be a relationship. 

I think the way I look at manufacturers' 
responsibility, having come from the gas and electric utility, 
we had a little -- I was going back to my former life. We 
basically had targets set for us by the regulator, the Public 
Utilities Commission, who said, you meet these targets or else, 
but we'll let you figure out how to meet those targets. 

That allowed the firm I worked with to be able to 
be flexible enough to meet all those targets for customer 
reliability, and safety, and so on and so forth, but also ensure 
that we were able to get our internal processes down to the 
point where we were the most efficient. 

So, that's how I tend to look at — I mean, 
that's one side of manufacturers' responsibility. 

The other is essentially is a regulatory body 
which truly micro manages everything that a participating entity 
would do. 

I don't think that anybody is saying here that 
manufacturers don't have a responsibility. I think it was 
pretty clear ten years ago, when the original bill was signed, 
that they do. 

So, I think what we're trying to figure out is, 
how do you make that as efficient as possible. 

Does that answer? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. It's sometimes hard, if 


you're not involved in a policy area for a long time, to know 
what is the sort of inquiry that reveals the philosophy and 
future of the program. You kind of bang around and hope that 
you hit the duck. 

Mark, thank you, and we'll take some more 

MR. MURRAY: Thank you. 

MS. HUMISTON: Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify. I actually am going to change subjects. If there's 
anyone else to talk about recycling, they can take their turn. 

My name is Glenda Humiston. I'm currently 
serving as President of the California Association of Resource 
Conservation Districts. Over a hundred districts throughout 
California that work closely in a conservation partnership with 
USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of 

We did submits a letter. I'd like to emphasize 
three points in particular, though, where we've been very 
pleased. And I would say myself in particular. I was elected 
President at about the same time that Mr. Goldzband came on to 
the Department. 

Three areas in particular have been a real 
pleasure to work with Mr. Goldzband. He has set a real 
leadership tone at the Department for himself in facilitating 
meetings and throughout his staff, working with us, looking to 
install and expand a new direction from the federal government 
that they're calling locally led conservation, which actually is 
something I think a lot of us in the field have been doing for 


years, but it's nice to get a little federal support for it. 

This idea in particular Larry has picked up, and 
went to D.C. on a few trips, and actually worked closely to help 
expand/ to allow local citizenry, both land owners, residents, 
special interest groups, et cetera, work together and find 
solutions to their resource conservation and management programs 
and efforts. 

Larry has also worked with us closely on USDA 
budget items. The State of California has for years received 
less than what we would call a fair share of USDA dollars to do 
resource conservation in the field. I think the fact that we 
have less budget than the State of Mississippi, given the 
difference in size and resource issues, speaks to that problem. 

And yet, Mr. Goldzband was able this year to 
raise that issue to a very high profile back in Washington, 
D.C, and at the '98 Appropriations Committee hearings, did get 
California's needs highly visable and included into the budget 
appropriation process. And we anticipate a large increase in 
those budget items next year for California. 

At the state level, the third item I'd like to 
focus on is our California conservation partnership. 
Mr. Goldzband has been very instrumental, as has all his staff 
that he's created a leadership ethic therefore, in reaching out 
to other state agencies, federal agencies, local agencies and 
interest groups, to try to find solutions that leverage the 
finite dollars we all have available for resource management 
programs, and to find efficiencies and opportunities for us to 
work together as partners. 


It has been a real pleasure working with Larry 
and his staff at the Department. And I know I speak on behalf 
of many other directors throughout the state who urged me to 
show up today and speak on his behalf. 

With that, I'd like to answer any questions if 
you have some . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Nope. Thank you. 

MS. HUMISTON: Thank you. 

MR. VINK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Erik Vink. I'm with the American 
Farmland Trust, which is a national nonprofit farmland 
conservation organization here to speak in support of this 

We're interested in the Department's farmland 
conservation activities, which are numerous, and is one universe 
that this Department deals in. 

I'd like to say that Mr. Goldzband has been 
terrifically approachable, and has really shown an ability to 
work with a wide variety of competing interests on these 
programs. We're just one of them, but we've been very impressed 
with his open-door policy and his willingness to really put his 
neck out on a few thing. I'd like to just let you know about 
two of those very briefly. 

One is the Agricultural Land Stewardship Program, 
which Senator Costa's legislation created and was something that 
our organization, and Planning and Conservation League, and 
other conservation groups were very supportive of. The 
Department's just made its first round of grants. Mr. Goldzband 


was very helpful in facilitating that process for local 
nonprofit organizations that are the groups making the 
applications for these monies, and has been supportive of 
keeping and increasing the funding for this program, which we're 
proud to say we have a little bit more funding to work with in 
coming fiscal year. 

And secondly, his advocacy at the federal level 
for the estate tax provisions in the federal Balanced Budget 
Agreement which ultimately were included in that, and which are 
of great assistance to family farmers all throughout the state 
to help them hold on to their land. 

So, we're very supportive. He's been great to 
work with. We look forward to working with him more and urge 
your support. 

MS. DELMATIER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Denise Delmatier with the Gualco Group on 
behalf of Norcal Waste Systems. 

Our interest in supporting the confirmation of 
Mr. Goldzband stems from our interaction with the Department on 
the bottle bill and the implementation of that very successful 

We'd like to echo Mr. Murray's comment that we, 
too, have found Mr. Goldzband to be very charming. The 
principals of Norcal have found Mr. Goldzband to be charming in 
his implementation of the program. 

We have had found Mr. Goldzband to be a real — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You get the Ann Landers Award. 
[Laughter . ] 


MS. DELMATIER: We have found Mr. Goldzband to be 
a real problem solver in the implementation of the program. 

One of the things that distinguishes Norcal from 
other waste recycling companies is the fact that they have 
implemented both convenient zone programs as well as curbside 
programs. That's very different than a lot of the waste 
companies who are primarily curbside operators. So, we operate 
in both the Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939, as well as 
the Bottle Bill, AB 2020. 

One of the things that we've talked about with 
Mr. Goldzband and the Department over the years is that these — 
while we have two very separate programs, there is room, since 
the implementation of AB 939, to have the elimination of the 
duplication and overlap between the two programs, but also to 
provide for more coordination, and. to provide that these 
programs are complementary rather than separate and distinct. 
We've worked closely with Californians Against Waste in trying 
to find those areas where the 2020 program can be complementary 
to the AB 939 program. 

One of the things that Mr. Murray mentioned is 
the proposal in that New Point Study. One of those proposals 
that we find as well to be very troubling is the proposal to 
eliminate the curbside funding. And that would be, obviously, 
very dramatic, and a negative impact on both the existing 2020 
program for the provision of curbside collection of beverage 
containers, as well as the ability of cities and counties to 
meet the AB 939, 50 percent diversion mandate that we are 
closely approaching, that deadline. 


One of the programs that we have found in 
addressing both the Bottle Bill and the AB 939 program that 
Mr. Goldzband's Department has been instrumental in implementing 
is the issue of scavenging. And it has been this Department 
that has addressed this issue head on by providing the funding 
and providing the wherewithal for local agencies to provide cops 
in the streets to address the issue of scavenging. 

Here in Sacramento locally, for example, 
Sacramento County has just engaged in embarking on a program 
that utilizes -- and Mr. Goldzband can probably give you a more 
technical description of that -- but utilizes basically an 
invisible paint that curbside residents will spray on their 
containers at the curb, and then those containers can be tracked 
as far as when they're redeemed for scavenging problems. And 
that way, the Department can then go in and assess whether or 
not a processer is operating in violation of the law and in fact 
enforce the law. 

But it has been the Department. Now, this is the 
-- curbside programs are generall considered — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How does that help identify 
processer problems? I don't get it. 

MS. DELMATIER: Processers are, under the law, 
prohibited from accepting scavenged materiel. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And this traces them. 

They have these other big garbege bins now thet 
sort of like eet your arm or something if you put it in there. 
There's e lot of one-armed poor people now. That's what I've 
seen outside my epartment building. They eren't the kind you 


1 can crawl into and stuff. You have to have a magnet or 

2 something to get the stuff out. 

3 MS. DELMATIER: The scavanging issue — 

4 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I haven't seen this invisible 

5 paint because it's invisible. I figured that one out. 

6 [Laughter. ] 

7 MS. DELMATIER: Again, it has been the Department 

8 that has addressed this issue head on by providing and listening 

9 to our concerns. We have gone repeatedly to the Department and 

10 the Board in asking for resolution and assistance in addressing 

11 this issue, but it's been the Department who has taken this head 

12 on and provided the pilot program. 

13 It's the Department that has provided the funding 

14 for curbside programs in order to meet the Integrated Waste 

15 Management Act's mandate. It hasn't been the Board that has 

16 provided funding for curbside program. It has been the 

17 Department. 

18 The jury's still out as far as what the 

19 Department's going to do as far as those key provisions that 

20 Mr. Murray mentioned on the New Point Study. We found some of 

21 those key recommendations to be just as troubling as 

22 Californians Against Waste did. We have had subsequent 

23 discussions with the Department, and we're very encouraged by 

24 those discussions in that no rush to judgment has been made as 

25 far as what those recommendations entail. But certainly -- 

26 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which recommendation was the 

27 most troubling? 

28 MS. DELMATIER: Certainly the recommendation to 


eliminate curbside funding would be quite troubling, both from, 
again, the implementation, the successes of the 2020 program, 
but also for purposes of complying with AB 939. 

So, we again have found Mr. Goldzband to be a 
problem solver. Immediately upon his appointment to his 
current position, he came forward, and came over to San 
Francisco, and toured the Norcal facilities. Wanted to see from 
a hands-on perspective -- 

CHAIRM/^ LOCKYER: Do they still have the big 
huge pig, sow, swine; that huge guy? Is that there still at 
Norcal, or is that gone? 

MS. DELMATIER: I'm sorry? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There used to be a huge, giant 
-- this is years ago -- but huge, giant, several hundred pound 
animal that was kept at the site. 


MR. GOLZBAND: One other way to recycle, I guess. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was sort of the idea. 
The original garbage recycling program. Not there now, 

MS. DELMATIER: I don't think so. 

But in any event, we have been very encouraged by 
his participation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's a wonderful book — I 
don't remember the name of it -- about sunset scavengers, and 
how it grew out of these sort of little neighborhood carts, and 
they co-opted into a larger and larger, and eventually into a 
large corporation. It's a fascinating story of how that was 



MS. DELMATIER: The horse-drawn carts at the turn 
of the century. Those are the original recyclers that came over 
from early Italy to San Francisco. 

But yes, and San Franciscans have been recycling 
at major rate ever since, and of course have carried that ethic 
forward. So they are, San Francisco Norcal companies are strong 
supporters of AB 2020 and the Integrated Waste Management Act. 


SENATOR HUGHES: I have just one simple question 
to ask you, Mr. Goldzband. 

How do you feel about the fact that we've had the 
Williamson Act for a long time, which has been good to try to 
preserve our prime agricultural lands. 

And it really upsets me as I come from the 
airport/ and I see what were beautiful agricultural lands and 
crops growing, that are disappearing now because we have office 
buildings and other things going up there. 

Do you think that this is a problem that your 
Department will be addressing any time in the future? 

Because I am from an urban district, and we very 
seldom see farmland. It's great coming to Northern California 
and seeing that we're going to try to continue in some way to 
support the largest industry in our state. 

And what plans does your Department have in terms 
of monitoring this kind of development? What are you doing at 
this point? 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Thank you. Senator. 


I should note that I'm an urbanite, too. I 
actually live in San Francisco. That's my permanent home, and I 
come here for the week. So, I'm with you on that. 

We are -- there are couple of things I'd like to 
talk to you about for just a couple seconds. 

The first is that the Department a little while 
ago formed the Williamson Act Advisory Committee, which is a 
group of stakeholders from all over California who are going to 
be -- who are finalizing their report now to give us 
recommendations about how to change the Williamson Act, or at 
least their recommendations to do so. 

We also, of course, have the Agricultural Lands 
Stewardship Program, which Senator Costa authored, and which 
Erik mentioned. 

But those things are sort of two very different 
animals the Williamson Act is a near-term solution. You have 
essentially a tax break, but you can get out of it after ten 
years. Actually, you can get out of it any time if you want to 
pay a cancellation fee. 

The Agricultural Land Stewardship Program is a 
long-term program which has a permanent conservation easement. 
So, they're very dissimilar. 

What we're looking at doing is working with our 
stakeholders, everybody from the building industry to the 
American Farmlands Trust, to try to figure out if there's not 
another way of doing it. And we don't want to simply split the 
baby and say 15 years or 20 years. 

What we want to do is try to provide a cash flow 



to an agriculturist, a farmer, a rancher, who may be right next, 
say, to a growing city, but wants to remain in agriculture. But 
he or she doesn't want to necessarily put a conservation 
easement on it because agricultural economics are very cyclical. 
And he or she may not want to burden the family with an easement 
if prices go way down. I mean, that's a very risky economic 
thing to do. 

So, what we're trying to figure out is how we can 
get the stakeholders together to agree on a longer term program 
which does allow a cash flow to come to the farmer or the heirs 
to the farmer to ensure that they can get through rough 
agricultural times economically, but still allow for a local 
land use authority to be able to house the residents who are 
coming in, or whatever, while also still keeping a whole lot of 
that land, a huge majority of that land on the farm, as it were. 

That's not an easy thing to do. But there are a 
lot of very interesting ways that you can approach this. For 
example, through a securitization process of funding, through 
various types of other financial instruments which have come 
along in the last ten years, which can allow for an awful lot of 
very creative ways to have a cash flow coming to the farmer, or 
his or her heirs, while at the same time, preserving that ag. 
while letting, say, a portion of that ranch or that farm, in a 
nonleapfrog way, be developed in order to house residents. 

So, there are all sorts of different, creative 
ways I think we can get to that. As a matter of fact, Erik and 
I are meeting at the end of this week with a number of other 
stakeholders to try to look at different creative ways to do 


lust that kind of thing. I assume they'll have even more ideas. 

So, we are trying to get there. 

SENATOR HUGHES: As long as you're going to 
preserve our logging industry. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: You have to. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Fine, okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The program that seems to 
perhaps be the neglected orphan in the Department is the Surface 
Mining and Reclamation. I know you mentioned it at the start of 
your testimony, but could you comment a little more on your 
expectations for improvement? 

MR. GOLDZBAND: I ' d be happy to, Mr. Chairman. 

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was a big 
topic of discussion, if I remember correctly, when my 
predecessor was in her confirmation. And what former Director 
Miller did was start an enforcement policy which basically 
ensured the Department was going to take a look at the quarter 
or so, depending upon how you look at it, mines who were not in 
compiance with SMARA. 

I have furthered that by doing a few 
things. First of all, in addition to an enforcement policy you 
need an enforcement strategy. How are you going to actually 
enforce the policy. 

So, I announced at an April board meeting of the 
State Mining and Geology Board essentially the three ways in 
which we will implement that policy. 

The first us that we have to educate the mining 
community and the lead agencies about what SMARA is and how it 


needs to be enforced on the local level. Because if you 
remember, SMARA's enforced on the local level. 

The second is to create really a more systemmatic 
communication between what's going on at the local level and 
what's going on not only up here in Sacramento, but in our 
different field offices. Because unless we really know what's 
going on at the local level, it's very difficult for us to have 
a uniform enforcement strategy and policy, which we need on the 
basis of fairness. 

The third thing is, we're going to penalize 
operators, if necessary, if they break good faith, and if they 
do not follow the law. 

Since I took my oath of office on the 2nd of 
January, I have signed something like 102 letters to 
recalcitrant mine operators, which out of the 245 which were 
originally identified by former Director Miller, about 102 we 
needed to really work with to get them up to speed, about half 
of them have responded. And about half of those, we have 
either — we are in the process of getting financial assurances 
and reclamation plans. 

The other half are, candidly, going into the 
enforcement pile, and are being worked through by our staff and 
by the Attorney General to come up with how we're actually going 
to enforce a penalty, or actually administer a penalty, I should 

The way that we tend to work this is by working 
with the locals, to try to get them to enforce, because that's 
what the Act does. And we have had some great success in a 


number of counties/ and we haven't had great success in other 
counties. So, it is also sort of a spotty thing on the 
state level. 

But at this point, I must admit, I have fined, 
the Department has fined operators anywhere from a few thousand 
dollars up to $20,000 and $25,000 who are not in compliance of 
SMARA. And we shall continue to do so. 

But I think the best compliance policy is one in 
which you don't have to fine that many people, but you get them 
working with the locals in a regular, systemmatic way, which 
gets them the reclamation plan and the financial assurance. 

Approximately 71-72 percent of mines are in 
compliance with financial assurances, and about 84-1/2 
percent -- I'm looking at my chart here -- for reclamation 
plans . 

But that means we have a couple 200-300 mines who 
simply aren't in compliance, and those are the ones we're 
concentrating on. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did I miss asking if anyone 
else wished to testify? 

Are there questions from Members of the 

The problem we have is, I think we probably 
informed ourselves sufficiently, but Senator Sher had asked that 
we postpone going to a vote for a week because he still wanted 
to have an opportunity to chat with you again. 

MR. G0LDZB7VND: We spoke this morning as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know, but he was unhappy 


with the conversation and asked that we -- he was trying to get 
here, but he's had to be on the Assembly Foor, working a bill 
that's been on call there this afternoon. 

So, let me just ask you to conclude, if there's 
anything further you would wish to add, and we'll schedule this 
for a vote only at our next meeting. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Happy to, sir, and we'll be in 
touch with Senator Sher's office. 


MR. GOLDZBAND: Happy to do so. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe I can refer back 
briefly, since we won't take testimony on this item, to item 
number three, the appointment of Tirso del Junco as a Member of 
the Regents of the University of California. 

We've had an extensive hearing, and so the matter 
is scheduled for a vote only. 

If there are Members that wish to comment prior 
to putting it to a vote, I entertain any comments that one may 
wish may wish to make. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Can we postpone? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let him show up. I don't like 
sitting through all this, either. 

The only point that I would make is that Dr. del 
Junco has served for twelve years as a Regent. I think he's 
been there long enough. That during his tenure, problems at the 
University have not abated, in fact, maybe the opposite is 


true. That is, student fee increases, more internal 

poll ticization, more controversy, more divisive board meetings. 

It seems to be the unanimous sentiment of the 
Democratic caucus that he not be confirmed. 

With that comment, I would make the motion that 
we refer the matter to the Senate Floor with the recommendation 
that we not confirm. 

That is, voting aye is a no. I'm sorry this is 
confusing, but it's the way you have to do it to get the rule 

Other comments from Members? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Motion not to confirm, meaning 
yes is to not confirm, and no is to confirm. We'll leave the 
roll open so Senator Brulte can record. 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis . 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis No. Senator Lockyer. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Leave the matter open. 

Dr. Nebeker, have I said it correctly? Help me 



out with the pronunciation. 

DR. NEBEKER: Mr. Chairman, it's Nebeker. 


Did you want to start with any opening comment at 



DR. NEBEKER: Sure. I'd just like to say good 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you'll let me jump back. 
The press have all left. I had meant to say it while they were 
still here. 

We have 19 appointees on our calendar today. 
Every one is a registered Republican. My guess is, probably 18 
of the 19 will get confirmed. 

And so, for those that think somehow it's a 
partisan act to turn down one of 19 when it's preceded. by the 
partisan act of 19 Republicans are submitted, never an 
Independent, or rarely an Independent, rarely a Democrat, I just 
want to make the point that it's not a partisan matter. 

Please, go ahead, sir. Sorry. 

DR. NEBEKER: I'd like to thank you. Chairman 
Lockyer and Members of the Senate Rules Committee, for allowing 
me to appear before you today. 

I'm particularly proud of our Lahanton Regional 
Board, our staff, and my small role in it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What area does that cover? 

DR. NEBEKER: That covers — I'm glad you asked, 
because that was my next comment. 

That covers essentially part of San Bernardino 


County, all the way up to the Oregon border. It's 570 miles -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is it a watershed? 

DR. NEBEKER: Yes, that's correct, right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, on the eastern side? 

DR. NEBEKER: Eastern side of the Sierra 
Nevadas. It's a fairly arid area, but -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is it an Indian tribe that got 
its name? Where did it come from? 

DR. NEBEKER: I think -- I don't recall, but I 
think it was a tribe that was -- it was either a tribe or a 
leader of the tribe that was in that area and sort of went over 
into the Nevada area, I think. 

SENATOR AYALA: Didn't you tell me this morning 
that it was from San Bernardino to Seattle. 

[Laughter. ] 

DR. NEBEKER: I'd like to infer it was that large 
to get more credit, but I don't think that's appropriate. It 
just goes to the Oregon border. 

It does have 3,000 miles of streams, and 700 
lakes. And probably the biggest claim of fame for our area is 
that Los Angeles gets a lot of its water there, and it's used as 
a recreational area for an awful lot of people in the State of 

My formal education, work experience, 
publications and dealing with professional societies have given 
me qualifications for the Board. I have a Bachelor's and 
Master's and Ph.D. in chemical engineering, and this gives me 
some idea as to how chemicals are transported through air, soil. 


and water, how fast they react, and that sort of thing. 

SENATOR HUGHES: This explains why we can't drink 
our water? 

DR. NEBEKER: Well, it depends on whether you 
talk to the people in L.A. or whether you talk to the people in 
Northern California. 

The water that comes down from -- to Los Angeles 
in the California Water Project, it has asbestos and a lot of 
other things in it, and so it must be treated just simply 
because it has to go through that transport process. 

And I know if you're from L.A., some parts of 
L.A. You really object to the taste and odor of the water 
sometimes . 

SENATOR HUGHES: All the time. Thank you. 

DR. NEBEKER: As a practicing engineer, I'm 
registered as a professional engineer in this state in the 
branches of chemical and agricultural engineering, which means I 
understand the ethical standards that are expected of our 

I reviewed a lot of proposals and other documents 
from the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Energy, 
National Institute of Health, and it gives me some idea as to 
what the peer review process is, so we can separate junk science 
from good science. 

CHAIRMTVN LOCKYER: Pardon me, but how do you have 
a ranch in Santa Monica? 

DR. NEBEKER: That's a good question. I have — 
you know, we're not full-time employees of the state, and so I 


have to earn a living. I have two small companies: one a 
research and development company, and another a ranch. The 
ranch is located physically in Lancaster, California. It's 680 
acres, but we share the office facilities in both places. 

As I said, I operate these two small companies, 
and I get some personal satisfaction knowing that, in addition 
to earning money, both companies provide some benefit for 
society. In the research and development company, I get ideas, 
and I write proposals and get funding from the federal 
government, and then serve as a principal investigator to do the 

This is the activity that gives me the 
qualifications to be in the appointment category of industrial 
water use, because many of these projects we've done use water 
to solve environmental problems. As an example, we developed an 
oil skimmer for high sea oil spills for the U.S. Coast Guard. 
We've developed a water pumping technique using wind energy for 
the U.S. Department of Energy. And our most recent work for the 
Department of Energy uses a pulsating water jet to demolish old 
nuclear reactors that are very difficult to tear down because 
they're so big and. heavily reinforced. 

In fact, we pass a water stream through a nozzle 
that's no bigger than my thin lead pencil here at 30,000 psi. 
It's going roughly the speed of sound and air, and it tears this 
thing, plus it cuts the steel pretty well. 

The ranch is 680 acres in area, as I mentioned, 
and we grow alfalfa, hay for horses and the dairy industry, and 
we also have a sheep and goat activity that we use to make 


1 serums and blood products that are used for medical research 

. 2 around the country. 

3 We also use over a billion gallons of recycled 

4 sewer water a year to irrigate our crops. Some of the local 

5 people feel that we save them over one and three-quarters 

6 million dollars a year because we don't use the precious 

7 groundwater resources, and we can use the recycled water at a 

8 pretty simple level of treatment so they don't have the 

9 additional treatment costs. 

10 We laser-level our fields to improve irrigation 

11 of fish and seaweed. We deep plow and recycle our manure and 

12 all that sort of stuff. And we published several articles on 

13 our ranch operation, and we've given tours of it. In fact, in 

14 1990, we got California Farm of the Year from the National Soil 

15 and Water Conservation. In 1993, I was selected the Outstanding 

16 Alfalfa Farmer. 

17 Our Board has the reputation of being more 

18 hands-on or personally involved than other regional boards this 

19 this state. I don't think there's any of our members that are 

20 just sort of bumps on a log. I encourage this. We treat 

21 everyone the same, whether they're the small guy or a branch of 

22 the federal government. We do our best to be available to the 

23 public. 

24 We have every meeting in a different location 

25 because our region is so large, and we want to make ourselves 

26 accessible. 

27 CHAIRMi\N LOCKYER: How often are those? 

28 DR. NEBEKER: They're once a month, and on the 


average, we have about ten meetings a year. Sometimes we might 
have special meetings, but on the average, ten meetings a year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're being reappointed, so 
you've served for how many years? 

DR. NEBEKER: I've served for a little over seven 
years now. I came in in the middle of someone's term, and then 
I had one full term. So, I've been reconfirmed by this 
committee, I guess, or confirmed twice before. 

In fact, I might say one thing I'm kind of proud 
of that in the seven-plus years I've been on this Board, I've 
never missed a meeting, in spite of the travel and all the 
hassle . 

We give a particularly high value to fairness on 
our Board. In other words, people may not agree, but we want 
them all to speak. And if they have technical concerns that 
we're not familiar with, well, we go to the source to be sure 
we've evaluated all the facts before we make a decision. 

Each Board member on our Board, of course, brings 
specific experience and expertise on various issues. And 
although I don't have the longest tenure on the Board, I'm one 
of the most experienced members. 

I believe each Board member has an obligation to 
share their experiences with the other Board members so this 
knowledge can be shared around. 

I believe as a Board member, it's important to 
expend the energy required. I mention I've been to every 
meeting through these years, and sometimes our meetings require 
extensive travel. Sometimes, although I hate it, sometimes we 


1 go to 1:00, 2:00 o'clock in the morning. 

2 I make decisions based on good science and good 

3 public policy, and I feel that I have the guts to make the tough 

4 decisions and to stand by them in the light of public 

5 controversy. 

6 I believe our Board functions well, but I can see 

7 room for improvement. I presently sit on a two-member committee 

8 to evaluate the Board and staff functions and report back to the 

9 Board our recommendations. Earlier, I was our Board's 

10 representive on the State Water Resources Control Board's 

11 External Review Committee, which reviewed the entire the State 

12 Board and regional boards' operation and made recommendations. 

13 The reason why I serve on the Board, and I would 

14 like to be reappointed, is, I would like to see more emphasis on 

15 the whole environmental process being more intelligent and based 

16 on more technically sound conclusions. Often, I think, clean-up 

17 takes too darn much time, and there's too much resources that 

18 are being wasted on nonclean-up functions. 

19 The regional boards also are going through a 

20 transition — 

21 , CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are nonclean-up uses? 

22 DR. NEBEKER: Well, like hassling over whose 

23 responsibility it is, perhaps using brute force type methods of 

24 clean up. And the thing that first comes to mind is pump and 

25 treat. You know, that's kind of a brute force way of cleaning 

26 up underground tanks and things like this. 

27 Now, there are certain reasons and certain 

28 cirucumstances that you need to do that, like to contain a plume 


that's moving out, as an example. 

But one interesting thing is, to my mind, anyway, 
when I first got on the Board, the word bioremediation, you 
know, which is sort of a natural tenuation of contaminants, you 
could hardly even mention that word. And now it's really in the 
forefront of some of our control and clean-up technology. 

So, that's what I say, I think our society is 
going to be better off if we can kind of go to things that are 
technically oriented. And based on my experience on the 
regional board, and my background in chemistry, water pollution, 
and engineering, I believe I can provide positive assistance 
through this challenging period. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There may be people present 
who wish to comment. Maybe I should ask for that first. Yes, 
sir, please. 

MR. TALBOT: Good afternoon. Lyle Talbot, 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It says, "Unpaid Lobbyist." 

MR. TALBOT: You might remember my pin and not my 
face. I was here several months ago on Dr. Becker's 
confirmation hearing. 

I'd just like to say and thank the Senate. On . 
June the 30th, a good friend of ours and a good friend of the 
environment. Stormy Williams died, and the Senate was adjourned 
in her name that day. We certainly appreciate that, her friends 
and her family. 

So, I'm Lyle Talbot. I represent Desert Citizens 
against Pollution. Ms. Williams' daughter was supposed to be 



1 with me today, but she had a personal family matter, and she 

2 represents California Communities against Toxics, which was 

3 formed by her mother. 

4 I am also the City of Lancaster's representative 

5 to the Edwards Air Force Base Clean-up Committee, Restoration 

6 Advisory Board it's called, so I don't know much science, but I 

7 know about this pump and treat thing that Dr. Nebeker here has 

8 been speaking about. Sometimes it's a good method; sometimes 

9 not. 

10 Well, we see -- I'm here against the confirmation 

11 of Dr. Nebeker. He has a conflict of interest, we feel. He is 

12 a sludge advocate. He's a user of sludge effluent, which he 

13 mentioned, at quite a few gallons per year. And he had applied 

14 for a sludge permit to spread sludge on his property at one 

15 time, but I don't know where that approval item is. 

16 He had the permit from the agency that he sits on 

17 to pump the effluent to his property, and he got a federal grant 

18 to construct. He has a big advantage. 

19 We believe he is a gross polluter. Members of 

20 our community have submitted photographic records of his pump or 

21 his water reclamation project gone awry. It's run off to the 

22 public road right-of-ways. 

23 We feel his demeanor at public hearings is 

24 questionable. It's sometimes bordering to intimidation, and he 

25 likes to cross the witnesses. 

26 Someone had the temerity to question his ability 

27 to give a fair reading on a hearing we had in November in 

28 Lancaster on sludge permits. He seemed a bit paranoid, but he 


would not recuse himself when another member of the Board did, a 
member from the City of Lancaster. 

There was an attempt made last fall to influence 
the press. He brought the Executive Director of Lahontan to a 
special meeting in Palmdale with the editorial board of the 
Antelope Valley Press . I just gave you an issue of that 
article. The chief editor declined to attend the meeting. Told 
me personally he knew what to expect, and he was wasn't going to 
be a part of it. 

They were trying to soften the blow about this 
sewer sludge spreading. And the timing couldn't have been 
worse, or it couldn't have been better for the opponents. When 
they did try to spread the sludge on the day that they held this 
press -- this meeting with the editorial board, the news broke 
that they were spreading sludge out on the west — east side of 
our Antelope Valley, in the wind, in about five or six -- five 
or six violations of their permit. This was a company called 
Pima Grow. 

It immediately set environmental activists in the 
area out there. And you can see, we did make quite a fuss over 
it. And it came to a head when we get to Sacramento in January, 
and the State Water Quality Board, they rescinded the permits 
that had been issued for this spreading. And it was a P.R. 
nightmare for the Lahontan Water Board. 

We feel that Dr. Nebeker's an absentee owner. He 
lives, I think, in the vicinity of Brentwood, down below. He 
does not live within the Lahontan boundaries, but he kind of 
indicated he did at the hearing. Someone questioned him there. 


We know one of his famous neighbors is O.J. Simpson. 

Water quality issue is a big thing in the 
Antelope Valley, because we live over a closed retention basin. 
There is no river running through our valley. Anything that 
goes into the basin, it's like a teacup. It remains there. So, 
we do not like to see sewer sludge spread, and effluent spread 
on our land. It could reach the water table in a couple of 
decades or a couple of generations, and my grandchildren and 
theirs would suffer, we think. 

Local opposition is from our own group and two 
that I just mentioned. And we have six town councils that have 
communicated with your office today or this weekend. I've 
asked, and the Cities of Lancaster and Palmdale have opposed any 
sewer sewer sludge spreading in general. 

I've asked Senator Pete Knight to be here, and 
Assemblyman George Runner, who just had a bill restricting — 
and it came about because of Lahonton's practice of issuing 
those permits, that the public wasn't quite aware of it. So, 
Mr. Runner's bill will require notification of the press and 
city officials in the affected areas. 

There has been quite a significant controversy 
over this whole thing. You saw article perhaps there, showing 
the region that Lahontan services. And we have — the Valley 
must speak out one editorial comment quite often, and this is 
the sort of thing that Dr. Nebeker and Lahontan officials are 
trying to repress. 

Some of the permits were rescinded, but not Dr. 
Nebeker' s, to my knowledge. He's still using effluent. 


Our water table is important to us, I say. It 
should not be the toilet for Los Angeles. And as to the 
beneficial reuse of sewer sludge, there's a lot of controversy 
there, and it's being looked at all the time. And we feel that 
the more it's brought to light, the better. 

So, I'm against this gentleman's reappointment to 
the Lahontan Water Board. And thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were there others that wished 
to comment? 

Maybe we could have you talk about this issue. 
It seems to be the only matter that has come up that raises any 
cloud or question. And just in reviewing the materials, I 
guess, there's the general health question that's raised, of 
whether there are contaminants that would seep into a 
groundwater basin. 

And then, separate from that, just the more 
personal one of being an user that votes on the matters. And • 
specifically when the issue came up before your Board, the 
decision to support a negative declaration which the State Board 
reversed and remanded for an EIR. 

Those seem to be the three topics. If you'd 
comment on those briefly. 

DR. NEBEKER: Certainly. 

In terms of the health issue, this practice is 
supported by the U.S. EPA, California EPA, California Integrated 
Waste Management Board, California Department of Health 
Services, they're certainly health oriented. 

And when we sent -- when we give waste discharge 


1 requirements that tell these people how to use this and how to 

2 apply it, we send it to all the county health departments in our 

3 region; that's twelve. We've never gotten any negative comments 

4 back from these people. 

5 We try to keep an open mind on the Board. And we 
"6 instruct our staff to try to get all literature and talk to all 

7 experts around the country that might have some inputs on this. 

8 Our waste discharge requirements, as far as I 

9 know, to my best knowledge and belief, if people follow those 

10 rules, that there is absolutely no health problem at all that's 

11 ever been documented or chance of happening in the future. 

12 In terms of the user, I am a user of reclaimed 

13 sewage water. And I first got my permit to do that — it's 

14 actually reclamation requirements. And that was before I was a 

15 member of the regional board. So, I've just — I've just 

16 continued that. 

17 Any issues that have to do — 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think you need to 

19 recuse because of that? 

20 DR. NEBEKER: No. 

21 What I do recuse myself from is any involvement 

22 on any issues that have to do with Los Angeles County Sanitation 

23 District. Those are the people that I get the water from. 

24 Now, I have never used sludge. Never ever. I 

25 have no permit to use sludge. 

26 The only thing I did is, a couple years ago, when 

27 this subject became controversial, I wanted to indicate to 

28 . everybody up there that had any objections about sludge that I 


had no problem using it on my own facility. 

The other thing is, I was sort of interested in 
it -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You kind of put your foot in 
it, so to speak? 

DR. NEBEKER: Right, exactly. 

And I called Stormy Williams in particular, and 
some other members of Mr.Talbot's group, and I asked them if 
they had interest, to come out and learn from me because I had 
never used it before. 

Some people have a problem bringing waste in from 
the City of Los Angeles. I guess I share those opinions. 

I use stuff that was generated from the local 
people there. 

It was just purely on an experimental basis, and 
I just wanted to try to show to everybody else that if I was 
going to say that I was comfortable with it, I should certainly 
demonstrate that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you're not a user? 


In terms of this negative declaration that was 
overturned by the State Board, I think there's some 
misunderstanding in why the State Board overturned it. 

There's several regional boards that don't 
require waste discharge, or at least there's one I know of. 
That's the Santa Ana Regional Board, that they don't think that 
there's a big enough threat to groundwater to even allow — even 
to have any need for regulation in terms of waste discharge 


1 requirements or anything else. 

2 That's why this whole sludge issue is an example, 

3 in my mind, and our staff's mind, that there's no good deed that 

4 ever went unpunished. And the fact is that our regional board 

5 stuck its neck out. I was involved in some of that original 

6 decision, that we thought we wanted to regulate this thing. And 

7 we wanted to enforce it, because there were some concerns by the 

8 public. 

9 So, we initiated this thing, and even in our area 

10 of Antelope Valley, and the threat to groundwater quality is 

11 slim or none, but we wanted to do it to ease people's minds. 

12 And now we get involved in all this controversy. 

13 The reason why the State Board overturned our 

14 general waste discharge requirements was simply because they 

15 wanted a statewide Environmental Impact Report done. They 

16 wanted to be consistent with what they did in the Central Valley 

17 region, and so they overturned ours. 

18 Would you like me to answer any other of 

19 Mr. Talbot's accusations, or shall we just let them pass? 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I think those are the 

21 principal ones. 

22 MR. TALBOT: I'd didn't like that term 

23 accusations. I'd like to talk about points of interest. 

24 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think those were the issues, 

25 as I recall, from Mr. Talbot's commentary. 

26 SENATOR AYALA: Can I ask the witness a 

27 question? 

28 Your concern is the use of sludge on agricultural 


land? Is that your concern? 

MR. TALBOT: Yes, it is. 

SENATOR AYALA: The sludge in this operation is 
to the mixed with any other? 

For instance, we have a plant in my area where 
they get dairy waste with human waste. I don't know what else 
is added to that, and it becomes compost 

MR. TALBOT: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: And they use it for weekend 
gardners and that sort of thing. 

There's no smell that I'm aware of, and I'm not 
too far from the plants itself. There's no flies. 

The Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board 
authorized the operation of that without any difficulty. 

So, I'm not quite clear what the opposition is? 

MR. TALBOT: There is a huge operation under 
consideration by the County Board of Supervisers in Los Angeles 
County to put an open air composting facility in the Antelope 
Valley over our watershed. In uncovered — no buildings 
associated with it. 

We have horrendous winds there. I'm sure that 
you've probably seen some reports or know of the history of the 
winds of the Antelope Valley. 

And they would have these 400-foot wide piles of 
finished compost out in the open, 16 feet high, and exposed to 
the winds . 

We see pathogens and PM 10s particularly 
impacting our area, and this is all on the west side of the 


1 major communities of the Antelope Valley. 

2 Yes, we have a big concern about it, 

3 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Sounds like it would violate 

4 the air standards on particulates. 

5 MR. TALBOT: It certainly would. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Separate from the water issue, 

7 just the air issue. 

8 MR. TALBOT: The Antelope Valley, just on July 

9 1st, began their own air pollution control direct. And they 

10 will now — the company that wants to build this facility 

11 outdoors will now have to approach our air quality board instead 

12 of the South Coast Air Quality. 

13 SENATOR AYALA: The County Board of Supervisors, 

14 through their Planning Commission, approved that operation? 

15 MR. TALBOT: The Planning Commission turned it 

1 6 down . 

17 SENATOR AYALA: And the Lahontan Water District 

18 set the rules and regulations under which they should work. 

19 They didn't approve the permit for the 

20 operation. They just set the standards and regulations 

21 according to what they felt were necessary. 

22 Are you staying that the regulations were not 

23 adequate? 

24 MR. TALBOT: I think you've summed it up for me, 

25 yes. 

2 6 SENATOR AYALA: But they couldn't go any lower 

27 than what the state requires. They can make it stricter, but 

28 not any less strict than what the state requires. 


But again, they were not the control. The Water 
Quality Control Board had nothing to do with the plant itself. 
It's the Board of Supervisers through their Planning Conraiission. 
All these folks do is set the minimum requirements to operate 
the plant. 

MR. TALBOT: Yes, and they issued the permit to 
spread raw sludge. 

You're talking about the compost the Green Waste, 
and what-not. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's the same difference. You 
don't use any dairy waste this this operation as we do down in 
my area. You use sludge from some municipal water district that 
you have there some place. 

You have to dispose of the sludge some place. 
What would you do with it otherwise? 

MR. TALBOT: I would think the best solution 
would be for a Mono landfill for a singular use of sewer sludge 
instead of -- 

SENATOR AYALA: The. only other problem I see with 
their operation is the fact that you don't restrict who deposits 
into that area. You can bring the sludge from anywhere in L.A. 

MR. TALBOT: That's the proposal before the Los 
Angeles County Board of Supervisers right now. 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't want to become the 
dumping area for the County of Los TVngeles. 

MR. TALBOT: We certainly don't. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's the only restriction that 


1 I understand should be looked at, and I don't know how you're 

2 going to do that. If it's the same county, how can you say only 

3 those that live in the valley can dispose of their waste there? 

4 MR. TALBOT: I know it. We are fighting off a 

5 waste monster, I tell you. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

7 Additional questions from Members? Is there any 

8 additional testimony? 

9 Did you want to close? Anything you'd say in 

10 summing up here. 

11 DR. NEBEKER: No, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any 

12 other comments. 

13 ■ CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You've served seven years. 

14 What's the pleasure? 

15 SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 

17 Lewis to recommend to the Floor confirmation. Call the roll. 

18 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 






Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



26 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


28 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 


DR. NEBEKER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good luck, sir. 

Finally we have Ms. Richardson. She'll be back 
in a moment. 

We have the roll open on Mr. Del Junco. It's 
currently three to one, and it'll be three to two. 

SECRETT^Y WEBB: Senator Brulte. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Brulte No. The vote is 
three to two. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Maybe I could take up the 
legislation recommended for consent. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative agenda 
items . ] 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Hi. Do you want to start with 
any comment? 


Mr. Chair and Members of the Rules Comm.ittee, 
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you. 
I'm here today asking for confirmation to the position of Member 
of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. I will try to 
summarize my qualifications for you. 

This would be my third term. I started my third 
term last January. I have served on the Board for 
ten-and-a-half years. During that time, I have participated in 
181 decisions. I have participated in 227 administrative 
orders, supervised 172 elections, and also oversee the 


1 disbursement of over $13 million to over 14,000 farmworkers. 

2 I think that my record of ten-and-a-half years 

3 reflects my fairness and impartiality to all of the parties. 

4 I'm also the most senior and most experienced 

5 member on the Board. I'm also, in the ten-and-a-half years that 

6 I have been there, have been the only member who has had 

7 experience in labor relations. 

8 Prior to being appointed to the Board, I was the 

9 chief negotiator for nine years with Sacramento County and with 

10 the State Department of Personnel Administration. I know what 

11 it is to sit at the bargaining table and negotiate a collective 

12 bargaining agreement with both independent unions and with 

13 unions that are associated or affiliated with the AFL-CIO. 

14 I know what it is to go through an organizing 

15 campaign and trying to maintain cool heads. 

16 During my tenure, I've participated in two sets 

17 of regulatory hearings, in the 1989-1980, and the 1993 through 

18 1995. And I have been sensitive and responsive to the needs of 

19 the parties all along. 

20 During my tenure and as a big supporter of it, we 

21 have developed an outreach educational project to educate 

22 growers and farmworkers as to their rights and their 

23 responsibilities under the Act. 

24 Back in the early '80s, we used to have a staff 

25 of about over 175 people. We used to have a budget of over $10 

26 million. 

27 We're now down a little bit over $3 million and 

28 less than 50 people. That covers both the Board's side and the 


General Counsel's side. 

The General Counsel, as you know, does not work 
for us. He's independently appointed and confirmed by the 
Senate, and he has prosecutorial responsibilities. 

I am very proud and very pleased of that project, 
and we just developed a video. We have developed the written 
materials both in English and Spanish. We have developed the 
video -- the English version of the video has just been 
completed. We intend to translate it Spanish. 

We have developed a -- call it an educational 
type of classroom setting, if you want to, a presentation, so we 
can go, and our presentation will be augmented by the written 
materials and by the video. 

Last spring, I was — I should say that I would 
like to be able to have the next term to be able to see the 
fruition of this project that I started during my second 

Just last spring, I was asked and I accepted to 
become a Member of Board of Directors for the Workplace 
Institute. And the Workplace Institute is a nonprofit 
organization whose responsibility or whose mission is to develop 
the framework where by employers and labor will come together to 
strengthen labor and management relationships through the 
utilization of intraspace, problem solving, and negotiating. 
The membership is comprised of members of labor and management 
and neutrals. And I'm very proud to say that I'm member of that 
Board of Directors. 

I think you all know that since the signing of 


1 the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975, the relationship 

2 between the parties have not been, I would say, a friendly 

3 relationship. There has been a lot of adversarial 

4 relationships. 

5 And I'd like to be able to see this come to 

6 fruition, and see us moving into a phase of being adversaries 

7 [sic], seeing the parties moving from being adversaries to a 

8 phase where they come together, and they can work their 

9 differences. 

10 I guess in closing, I would say that I believe 

11 that I have done a good job in my position. Being a judge is 

12 not an easy job. In these ten-and-a-half years, I have been 

13 referred pro-grower. I have been referred as pro-farmworker. 

14 But I guess when it come down to it, that's probably the best 

15 testimony as an indication of the kind of job I have done. 

16 I have not prejudged the facts before they come 

17 to me. I have waited for the facts to come to me as a judge, 

18 and I have ruled accordingly. And that's what I intend to do in 

19 the next five years if I am confirmed. 

20 With that, I would be glad to answer any 

21 questions that you may have. 

22 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me inquire first if 

23 there's anyone who wishes to comment? 

24 We have questions as well. Let's start with, 

25 perhaps, the access rule. 

26 I guess there are always discussions of the 

27 general philosophy as well as the specifics of the rule. I'd be 

28 interested in hearing your views both as to the general 


philosophy as well as the specifics. That is, that no more than 
30-day periods when there are limited numbers of organizers who 
have access before, after, and during lunch. 

Could you comment on discussions that you may be 
aware of of possible changes in the access rule, and what your 
views are about the general philosphy and the specifics? 


If I may start by saying for the clarification of 
everybody, under our statute, the unions are given rights to 
access employees in the employers' and the growers' fields so 
that they can talk to and seek support from the farmworkers to 
be organized by that union. 

Access regulations are not in the law. Access 
regulations were passed by the Board, I believe, in the late 
'70s or early '80s. They were challenged. They went to the 
court, and they were upheld by the court. 

The access regulations detail what violations may 
be -- they're by the employer or by the union -- and sets some 
remedies in terms -- in a very vague fashion in terms of what 
those remedies will be. 

I know that the union has been concerned about 
those, and I have had discussions with them over the last couple 
of weeks. And I have told them that it is not my intent to 
eliminate or dismantle in any way the existing access rights 
that they have to farmworkers . 

What I want to do is improve on the processes 
that we have. One of those, if I may take a couple of minutes 
of your time, the problem that we have had has been what we call 


1 motions to deny access. 

2 If a union organizer comes into a grower's field 

3 and says, "I want to take access, " and employer says, "No, you 

4 will not, " the remedy that the union has is to go to the nearest 

5 regional office and file an unfair labor practice charge. 

6 If the employer -- if we have same situation and 

7 the employer feels that the union has violated those access 

8 rights, he has a right, or she has a right to file what is 

9 called a motion to deny access. 

10 And we haven't really had that many of those 

11 motions come before us because there have not been that many 

12 organizing campaigns during my tenure. And it came up for the 

13 first time last year, and we took a look at the access 

14 regulations. And we saw that it said before the union organizer 

15 is prevented from taking access, is denied access, a hearing 

16 shall be held. 

17 But the access regulations did not tell us, what 

18 do you see? What do you read to make a determination before you 

19 decide if there's going to be a hearing or not. 

20 So, we set up a mechanism, and we did it through 

21 a Board decision. Shortly thereafter, there was motions to deny 

22 access that we reviewed based on that decision. 

23 It became apparent to us that the system that we 

24 have come up with still did not satisfy what we, as judges, 

25 wanted. That is, to be able to serve -- to see justice being 

26 served in an expeditious way. 

27 To me as judge, Senator, justice is not being 

28 served when I'm hearing a case where the event that triggered 


that case took place six monthS/ eight months, a year, and two 
years ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would that be true if it's an 
unfair, for example? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Exactly, exactly. 

And so, last spring, when we read that the union 
was once again was going to start, as we read, a massive 
organizing campaign of the strawberry workers in the coast, in 
the Watsonville area, I went to my Board members and I said, 
"There has to be a better way of doing this." And I said to 
them, "I want to look at what is called alternative dispute 
resolution methods." 

And so, I directed my Board counsel to call the 
NLRB, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service, et cetera, et cetera, and 
see what they were doing, and how we would come up with a 
process that would be better. 

What we ended up then proposing to the Board was 
what I would call a pilot project, where nobody's rights were 
going to be changed. Nobody's rights were going to be 

But what I was trying to do is to interject an 
informal process before everybody would go out and filing formal 
things. I wanted to be able to bring a facilitator or a 
mediator to meet together with the parties as soon as it 
happened to be able to try to bring a solution to the parties. 

As it happened, the attorneys in my Board took a 
look at it and they said, "We cannot do this. This would not be 


1 seen as a pilot project. This would be seen as an underground 

2 regulation, and the Office of Administrative Law will throw it 

3 out . " 

4 Then we looked at, well, would it meet the 

5 emergency guidelines of an emergency regulation. We took a look 

6 at that. Again, our attorneys advised us that it did not meet 

7 the general welfare, health, and public safety. 

8 So, it didn't go anywhere, but at least it 

9 brought to — once again the Board realized that there has to be 

10 a better way of dealing with these issues on an expeditious 

11 basis without violating or eliminating anybody's rights. 

12 And so, there's certain things that were done 

13 that we can do with it in terms of how soon we can try to 

14 attempt to call for what is called a prehearing conference, move 

15 things along quicker. 

16 Does it satisfactory me personally? No. I guess 

17 it has to do with the fact of my background as a chief 

18 negotiator. When I had a problem with the union, I would say to 

19 the union person, "Let's take a walk around the block, and let's 

20 see if we can resolve this." And that's what I would like to 

21 see. 

22 But anyhow -- 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, I think there may be still 

24 some potential for improving the -- 

25 MS. RICHARDSON: Existing processes, yes, 

26 Senator. 

27 CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: Especially around the 

28 prehearing conference? 


MS. RICHARDSON: Some of the things that were 
implemented to be able -- that would move the cases along more 
expeditiously, but it still, if you ask me, if I had the 
authority to be able to change something, I would say what I 
would like to be able to do is that, as soon as the union 
organizer comes into the fields, and either party feels that 
their rights have been violated, I would like to be able to get 
a mediator or facilitator, right there and then, either through 
a conference call or through the parties within two days. Let's 
hear both sides. Let's see what we have to do. This is the 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can't do that now, sort of 
an informal — 

MS. RICHARDSON: We have to do it through 
regulations. The Office of Administrative Law would not allow 
us to do it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't mean the Board itself, 
perhaps, but -- 

MS. RICHARDSON: That the parties can agree to do 



MS. RICHARDSON: They certainly can, but we have 

not -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And there's no formal 
mechanism, I guess, for that? 

MS. RICHARDSON: No, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me take another issue, 
make whole remedies. 


MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm not there, reading all the 
opinions, so I can only mention the comments that have been 

You are appointed to represent the general public 
or a public member of the Board. Your history, your work 
history, however, has been representing management in various 

MS. RICH7\RDS0N: I was the chief negotiator for 
management for nine years for the Sacramento County and for the 
State Department of Personnel Administration. 

CHAIRMTUSI LOCKYER: So, it may be that history 
that makes some ask if there's a pattern with respect to 
requests for make whole remedy that have come before the Board. 

The claim is, and there's a bunch of cases cited, 
Church and so on and so forth. The claim is that you're very 
reluctant to use the make whole remedy if there's any dispute at 
all between labor and management as to the charge. 

Do you have any thoughts about the philosophy in 
the particular times and when it may be appropriate or not? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Before I address the philosophy 
on make whole, let me first state that I cannot go back and 
change my background, my work background. I was the chief 
negotiator for management, and I do not deny that. 

However, when you are a good advocate, you 
develop a good relationship. You have to put yourself in the 
shoes of your counterpart, because that's the way you are — the 
person has needs, you have needs. In order to reach a 


collective bargaining agreement, you have to compromise, and you 
have to reach agreement . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Whose shoes are you in now? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm the shoes of a judge, 
Senator, yes. 

And I have to say, like I said earlier, that my 
experience, having been a chief negotiator, having been at the 
bargaining table, having been through organizing campaigns, have 
been an asset to me on the Board in being able to share that 
knowledge with other Board members and with staff, who have no 
experience in collective bargaining. 

I don't think that this is something that you can 
teach from a book. This is something that you have to live. 

So, I have always been cognizant that I'm there 
as a judge, not as a former management advocate, not as. being 
biased on either side. 

When the law was written, it said that make whole 
-- this would be the remedy that would be applied. That is 
appropriate, and I do not disagree with that position. 

And so, when make whole has been called for, I 
have so ruled. And when it has not been appropriate, I have so 

I have to say, Senator, that in the 
ten-and-a-half years that I have been there, there's very few 
cases of make whole that have come up before the Board, because 
there was not that many organizing and/or signing of collective 
bargaining agreements. 



MS. RICHARDSON: One of those things that I did, 
your office requested, I submitted the 181 decisions. And I 
think that you can tell by that history that I have so ruled on 
make whole when I felt it was appropriate, and when not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does a case come to mind where 
it was appropriate? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I can tell you right now that 
there was one that happened a couple of months ago, and I cannot 
discuss it because it's in litigation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you give me the kind of 
problem that necessitated that remedy? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Make whole usually comes to 
us — has come to us on what is called bad faith bargaining or 
surface bargaining. 


MS. RICHARDSON: To me, like I said, my 
background, having negotiated -^ 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can tell if it's real or 

MS. RICHARDSON: Yes. And I have seen cases 
where it is has been so -- so obvious. 

And we also have a legal standard that was 
established by the -- under the -- I believe it's the J. R. 
Norton court decision. It was a case where the Board found make 
whole. This was late '70s, early '80s, Senator. Don't quote me 
on the specific year. The Board found make whole. 

It was appealed by the employer to the court. 
And the court threw it out and said, the Board will not apply 


make whole in every case that they see of surface bargaining or 
bad faith bargaining. You have to take a look at the totality 
of the circumstances before you would apply it. 

And that has been the legal precedence that was 
in existence at the time that I came in, and it's in existence 
at this point in time. And I have lived by that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I do remember there were some 
early examples that seemed to be abusive, where there probably 
was excessive punishment, where a farmer was required to read 
public statements in the town square, and somethings that seemed 
a little unrelated to the abuse. 

So, you're not contemplating changes in make 
whole policy? 

MS. RICHARDSON: No, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: As a judge, you look at each 
case as it comes by. 

MS. RICHARDSON: And also, to let you know, and 
I'm pretty sure you know this, make whole's in the law. And we 
as a Board cannot change the law. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a backlog of 

MS. RICHARDSON: Not right now. Senator, no. 


I have in my notes that there's 187 unfairs that 
have been filed that date back a year-and-a-half or so. 

Is that not a backlog? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Again, I want to make the 
distinction between the Board and the General Counsel. 


The General Counsel -- unfair labor practice 
charges are filed with the regional staff. They're investigated 
by the field examiners. The General Counsel has complete and 
total prosecutorial authority. I guess you could call the 
General Counsel our gate keeper. 

If those charges turn into complaints, those 
complaints go to hearings, and those decisions are then appealed 
to us if either party does not like the administrative law 
judge's decision. 

So, we cannot -- we do not control the General 
Counsel . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You won't hear it. 

My notes also indicate there's 15 complaints 
awaiting a hearing, but that may be due to staffing of the 
General Counsel's office. 

MS. RICHARDSON: If they're waiting hearings, 
it's because a number of things could happen. They have not ■ 
been scheduled for hearing because the witnesses may not be 
available. The attorneys that are representing both parties, 
they're not available to hear it. They may be in the process of 
a prehearing conference, so something may not have been 
scheduled. It can be for a number of reasons. 

But in terms of the backlog, when you say is 
there a backlog before the Board, I interpret that by saying, 
are there any cases right now pending before the Board, where 
the case has been transferred to the Board? That's what I was 
referring to, the answer is no. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does the Board have a role in 


reconunending reorganizations within the system? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Within our agency. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If there's a backlog somewhere 
along the way in the agency, do you have any role? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Sure. We wear two hats. We 
wear the quasi- judicial hat when we sit as a Board and we're 
issuing decisions, et cetera, et cetera. 

And we have our regulatory hat, and we have our 
administrative hat. As administrators, we are running an 
agency. And we have employees to supervise. So, any 
reorganization that may occur comes before us. We will be 
making the determinations as to that reorganization. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Now, wearing that hat, are 
there any changes contemplated in the administrative structure 
to deal with the unfairs that stack up or whatever? 

MS. RICHARDSON: The reorganization that has 
been — that is pending before the Board had to do with the 
caseload. Our workload is caseload driven. If we don't get — 
if the elections do not occur, if the unfair labor practice 
charges do not go to complaint and decisions are issued, we 
really do not have any work coming before us. 

What has happened is that the majority — the 
majority or the bulk of our caseload has been on litigation. I 
would say -- I can safely say. Senator, that 70 to 80 percent of 
our decisions issued by the Board are appealed to court. 


MS. RICHARDSON: Seventy to eighty percent. I'm 
taking a guess of the bulk of them. 


1 The bulk of our decisions are appealed to the 

2 Board. By statute, those decisions can only be appealed to the 

3 appellate courts or higher. 

4 However, in the last couple of years, we have had 

5 parties taking us to superior courts. 

6 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What happens then? 

7 MS. RICHARDSON: Well, we go there and fight it. 

8 We tell the judges — 

9 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Send it to the appellate? 

10 MS. RICHARDSON: I just heard you saying earlier, 

11 what happens when you say, "with all due respect," you're going 

12 to say something disrespectful. 


14 MS. RICHARDSON: Well, in a very nice way, we 

15 tell the superior courts, this is none of your business. 

16 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They don't have jurisdiction? 

17 • MS. RICHARDSON: Exactly. 

18 But we still have to be present, write briefs. 

19 We still have -- if oral argument is called for, we have to send 

20 our attorneys. 

21 What has happened is, that has been the bulk of 

22 our workload, and we do not have a solicitor or a litigator 

23 trained as a litigator to represent our interests in court. 

24 So what we have is, we have three Board counsels. 

25 They were hired to provide advice to us. Board counsels. 

26 With the downsizing that has occurred in our 

27 agency, we have our Board counsels wearing three hats: Board 

28 counsels, advisors to us; the Executive Secretary who has 


independent authority, for example, see election objections and 
set it for hearings. He doesn't have a staff, so he calls on 
our Board counsel to function as an executive secretary. And 
then, when our decisions are issued and they're appealed to the 
higher court, our Board counsels are then called upon to 
litigate them. 

I've got to tell you that it's just -- it's just 
not working. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How would you try to fix that? 

MS. RICHARDSON: So what we did, and that brings 
us to the reorganization, we said, okay, where do we have lower 
caseload and where do we have the higher caseload? So what we 
looked at is, we have two -- right now, two full-time 
administrative law judges positions and one half-time, gave us 
three people. What we have seen is that it's not that many 
hearings are happening because we're not getting the decisions 
from the administrative law judges. 

So, we still -- we wanted to maintain the 
flexibility of three people, but we really did not need to have 
two full-time positions. We figured that if we cut one position 
to half-time, we could take the money from that half-time, tie 
it together with a vacant senior Board counsel position, and 
come up with the money for a full-time solicitor, which we need 
very badly to be able to defend our decisions before court. 

It has been brought to my attention that, from 
the unions, that they would not like to see that happen because 
they're concerned that at the point in time when all these 
unfair labor practice charges are adjudicated and they come 


before us, the bodies will not be there. 

So, I have been talking to the union representing 
that classification and trying to see how we can come up with 
monies to be able to fund the solicitor position without 
eliminating the ALJ. And I have told him that I would be 
receptive to that idea. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't know how you check 
workloads with AL Js . I probably ought to be careful here, but 
does somebody check to see how many hours — 

MS. RICHARDSON: We have statistics that we have 
collected. As a matter of fact, when we presented the 
reorganization plan to the State Department of Personnel 
Administration, which has to give you their blessing, we 
collected all these statistics. We showed them in terms of 
how — the dramatic change that has gone from years past to 
this. The fact that we don't have to justify it, but we do need 
this solicitor very badly. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You couldn't get a solicitor 
added, though, in the budget requests? Have you asked Governor 
to include the funds for a solicitor? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Not at this point in time. And 
I have to say in all candidness. Senator, I have in the last 
seven years, four or five out of the seven years, we have been 
recommended to be done away with and be merged with PERB. When 
people are recommending for you to be done away with because of 
the caseload, I don't think it's a good idea to go and ask them 
for more money. So, we have been gun-shy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's some logic to that. 


except you aren't going to be done away with. 

I know Senator Ayala has questions. 

SENATOR AYALA: Ms. Richardson, how long have you 
been on the Board now? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I have been there ten-and-a-half 
years, Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: Why do you think the number of 
union representation elections have declined over the years? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Let's see. We held during 
this — from March 1st of '87 to June 30th of 1997, 224 
petitions for elections were filed; 28 of those petitions were 

SENATOR AYALA: How many were filed? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Two hundred and twenty- four were 
filed; 28 petitions were dismissed; 37 petitions were withdrawn; 
172 elections were held; 161 elections were certified. Of 
those, in '87, of those elections, the union was certified as 
the collective bargaining representative -- 

SENATOR AYALA: How far do you go back with those 

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to March 1st of 1987. 

And 74 resulted in no union certification. 

SENATOR AYALA: The California Department of 
Personnel Administration recently rejected a reorganization plan 
for the ALRB that was proposed by the Board. 


SENATOR AYALA: The plan would have cut a hearing 
officer position to half-time in order to have a fourth 


full-time senior level attorney to represent the Board on the 
court cases. 

How did you vote on that, to cut back on the 
position to half-time of a hearing officer in order to get a 
fourth full-time attorney to represent you folks. How did you 
vote on that? 

MS. RICHARDSON: That was the situation that I 
was just alluding earlier with Senator Lockyer in terms of the 
reorganization plan, indicating that our caseload is high on 
litigation, and we don't very anybody in the Board trained to be 
a litigator for us in the courts. And we have a low caseload if 
terms of hearings, so we don't need as many administrative law 

So again, being gun-shy in terms of not — didn't 
think that our question for more money was going to be received 
well — 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you felt that a fourth 
full-time attorney was more important at that point than a 
hearing officer? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Nobody's more important. 
Senator, but that in terms of our caseload, when we are being 
taken to the — when 80 percent of our decisions are being, 
appealed to court, we need somebody who's trained to be able to 
defend our positions in court. 

So, we felt was that we didn't need 
two-and-a-half ALJ positions. What we wanted to do was cut one 
of the full-time positions to half. We would still have three 
people on board. We would still have the flexibility to be able 


to hear the cases. But it would give us the very badly needed 
litigator that we don't have. 

And so, that decision, based on being fiscally 
responsive, thinking that we would not be -- our request for 
more money would be well received by the Legislature or 
Department of Finance, we went with that reorganization to DPA. 

DPA's response was, you have not been able to 
provide sufficient information for us to say yes, go ahead and 
do so. 

As I mentioned earlier, the unions have 
expressed -- one of the unions, the UFW, came -- not the UFW, 
the ACSA and the UFW -- and I have to say, UFW, have indicated 
opposition, have expressed opposition to that because they're 
concerned in terms of, if in the future we get tons of unfair 
labor practice charges that comes to us, we may not have the 
necessary individuals. 

So, we are looking and talking about 
possibilities of getting additional monies without eliminating 
ALJ, and I have indicated earlier that I would be receptive to 

SENATOR AYALA: Last year, ALRB ruled in its 
Navarro decision that the UFW organizers must cease and desist 
from utilizing the ALRB's access rule for the primary purpose of 
inspecting certain employer-provided facilities and advising 
employers when and how they believe the same employers very 
committed infractions of regulations governed by the different 
state agencies, Cal-OSHA and others. 

How did you vote on that, on the Navarro 


1 decision? 

2 MS. RICHARDSON: These are the cases that I was 

3 referring to, Senator. 

4 Last year, on the motions to deny access, and I 

5 do not have my Board counsel over here to tell you if the 

6 Navarro decision right now is in litigation or not. If it's in 

7 litigation, I cannot -- 

8 SENATOR AYALA: My question is, how did you vote 

9 on that particular case? 

10 MS. RICHARDSON: Well, I'm trying to remember. 

11 If we were talking -- I can't -- I don't have the case -- 

12 SENATOR AYALA: Let me remind you, this is where 

13 the Board ruled that the union must cease and desist from 

14 utilizing the access to the fields to inspect the facilities. 

15 MS. RICHARDSON: I see, okay. 

16 The reason why I'm being cautious is because we 

17 had a number of cases here that dealt with that same issue, and 

18 we felt -- the ALJ found that the union had violated the access 

19 regulations, and we upheld the ALJ. 

20 SENATOR AYALA: Don't they have that right to go 

21 into the fields to check the facilities? 

22 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to explain. 

23 The access regulations say that the union have 

24 the right to go into the fields to talk to and solicit the 

25 support of farmworkers for the purpose of organizing. 

26 There was some cases that we decided last year 

27 where the Board ruled that the primary purpose of the union in 

28 going to take access was not to talk to the employees or to 


solicit their -- 

SENATOR AYALA: We're talking about two different 
things . 

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm getting there. 

SENATOR AYALA: We're talking about the 
inspection of facilities provided for the workers. 

MS. RICHARDSON: I'm going to get to that. 

So that the primary purpose that the union, in 
taking access, was not to solicit -- to talk to or solicit 
support for the purpose of organizing, but to the inspect water 
and toilets. 

And the Board in its decision said that that is 
not the intent, that is not the purpose of taking access. It 
was not to inspect toilets or water. And the Board ruled 
accordingly. And I was in the majority in that decision. 

As I said, I can't say much more about it because 
it was appealed, and it's being litigated. 

But I have also said to you that I do not have 
what my position is on existing access. I don't have a problem 
with the rights that the union have — 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you voted yes, with the 
majority, to prohibit the union representatives to go in the 
fields to inspect the facilities provided by the farmers? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Under the access regulations. 

SENATOR AYALA: Right, you voted to cease and 
desist on the union from access rule for the primary purpose of 
inspecting facilities. 

Let me tell you that as a former farmworker. 


those are extremely sensitive needs for the farmworkers. And 
you refused to let the union people go into the fields to 
inspect those facilities? I don't understand that. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Not under the access 
regulations. The access regulations are very clear. 

SENATOR AYALA: Not to lobby the workers, but 
just to inspect the facilities, is what I'm reading here. 

MS. RICHARDSON: But what I'm saying is that 
under the access regulations, access regulations are very clear 
in the sense that they're there to talk to the union about 
organizing and to solicit their support. That is what the 
access regulations are for. 

That ' s what previous Board members that have 
occupied my position many years ago, that's what they said 
access regulations were to be used for. 

SENATOR AYALA: You can't go by what other people 
did. It was before you, and you voted with the majority to 
oppose any inspection of these facilities by the union people. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, previous Board decisions 
are precedent to us, and we follow legal precedent. Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't think I have any more 
questions. Thank you very much. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you. Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Following the same nature of the 
conversation with Senator Ayala, you were making the point that 
the access regulations said that union members could come and 
converse with workers regarding organization; is that correct? 
Regarding organization? 


MS. RICHARDSON: I don't have the specific 
language over here. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I'm talking about what you 
just said. I'm trying to paraphrase to make sure that I 
understood what you said. Did you not say that? 

Senator Ayala asked you that, in this particular 
incident, and I don't remember the name of the case that Senator 
Ayala asked you about, that the agents came to approach the 
workers about the conditions, toilet facilities and other 
conditions, and it was not for organizational purposes. 

Is that what I heard you say? 

interpreted — 



That's the way — 

No, is that I heard you say? 

That ' s the way the Board 

Is that what you said? 

Yes, Senator. 

All right. We have it recorded. 

I could read it from the recording, but I'm just reiterating to 
make sure that I heard you say that. 

It seems to me that circumstances around the 
conditions would be motivational or nonmotivational to workers 
wanting to organize or be a part of the organization. 

If we did not have adequate toilet facilities on 
this floor, and we as members of the public, and we as Members 
of the Legislature didn't have adequate toilet facilities, I 
think that we would be outraged. 

Don't you, as someone who is sitting here, and if 



1 you have to use toilet facilities, wouldn't you be outraged? 

2 MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Senator. 

3 SENATOR HUGHES: All right. And if Senator 

4 Lockyer says because we have no where to send you, 

5 Ms. Richardson, to relieve yourself, don't you think it would be 

6 nice if we complained to whoever runs this building, that you 

7 would join him. 

8 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Governor. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: Yes. All right. I didn't know 

10 he was in charge of this particular building, but that's fine. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Certain parts of it. 

12 SENATOR HUGHES: So, I'm just trying to make an 

13 analogy. 

14 Don't you think that you would say, yes, I'd join 

15 you because I'm in misery. I cannot go and relieve myself. 

16 So, what I'm saying to you is that the legitimacy 

17 of the reason that they were there is one that you're trying to 

18 prove as not legitimate, because in your perception, that didn't 

19 have anything to do with organization. 

20 MS. RICHARDSON: I will respond when you're 

21 finished. Senator. 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: No, I want you to respond to the 

23 question I'm asking you now. I don't want you to build a new 

24 case. 


26 In terms of the enforcement of the working 

27 conditions as to water and as to toilet facilities fall within 

28 another agency called Cal-OSHA. 


The union has the right at any point in time/ 
when they feel that the toilets are not -- clean toilets are not 
being provided, and potable water are not being provided, they 
certainly have the right and the farmworkers have the right to 
be able to go to Cal-OSHA and say, "Send an inspector over here 
and find out." And they have -- and those individuals from 
Cal-OSHA have the right to be able to enforce and tell the 
grower, "You will provide potable water and you will provide 
clean toilets . " 

That is the function of Cal-OSHA. It is not the 
function of the ALRB. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right. What I read here 
from the code, Section 1140.2 of the California Labor Code 
states with respect to the ALRB, "It is hereby stated to be the 
policy of the State of California to encourage and protect the 
right of agricultural employees." 


SENATOR HUGHES: So, you have a right, a right to 
have toilet facilities. That's a human right. 

And you're telling me that that is not here in 
the code? It says protect the rights. 

MS. RICRARDSON: As it pertains to the collective 
bargaining rights of the farmworkers. We are here, our agency 
enforcees and administers the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. 

SENATOR HUGHES: In further reading on the same 
line it says, "and to negotiate the terms and the conditions of 
their employment." 

A condition of employment is whether you have or 


do not have sanitary conditions to meet your physical needs. Do 
you agree or disagree? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I do not disagree. That 
statement is preceded by the word, "and to negotiate." Once the 
union has been certified after a duly elected election, the 
union is certified as the bargaining agent for the employees, 
that union has the right to come and take access to the 
employers. We ask they do -- they try to have an agreement as 
to that. 

But post-certification access will be allowed the 
union to have, so they can come in, and they can talk to the 
employees about -- not only about terms and conditions of 
employment, but about wages and anything else that falls 
within — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, and this was the anything 
else that fell within the jurisdiction. 

MS. RICHARDSON: They were not taking access — 
they were not negotiating. They had not become the union, the 
certified bargaining agent at the time this happened. Senator. 
They were trying to organize the employees. 

SENATOR HUGHES: In terms of your self perception 
and how you have functioned on this Board, do you feel that it's 
your role as a Board member to be an active agent for these 
employees? Or, do you see your role simply as a neutral agent? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I see my role as a judge. I see 
my role as somebody who will not prejudge the cases before me. 

I see -- I see myself as somebody who will look 
at the totality of cirucumstances and always be willing and able 


to listen to all the parties, the farmworkers/ the union that 
represent the farmworkers, and the employers. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Now may I go back to my original 
question which you turned around? 

Do you view your role as an active agent for the 
agricultural employees, or do you view your role simply as a 
neutral agent? Answer yes, you see are role as an active agent, 
or you simply see your role as a neutral agent. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, I think that I see the 
role of a judge as being neutral. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Not as a judge. Of your role, 
your role as a member of the Board. 

MS. RICRARDSON: I see my role as member of the 
Board as a neutral. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Explain that neutrality. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, I have been called upon — 
I was appointed to this position and confirmed by this 
committee, and confirmed by the Senate twice, to administer and 
enforce an act that was passed by this Legislature 22 years 
ago . 

For example, my background as a management 
advocate should not and has never played a role in terms of my 
position as a judge. 

I'm there to listen to all sides. I am there to 
see, look at the merits of the case that comes before me. Take 
a look at all the facts. Take a look at the decision sent by 
the administrative law judge. Read the briefs that have been 
filed by the parties. Review the testimony and the exhibits 


that have been sent to us. Take a look at the legal precedence 
that was established by my predecessors over the years. Take a 
look at court decisions that have established precedent. 

After I have reviewed all that, then rule 

SENATOR HUGHES: Read Section 114 0.2 of the 
California State Labor Code that I read to you before with 
respect to the ALRB. "It's hereby stated that the policy of our 
state is to encourage and protect the rights, protect the right 
of agricultural workers." 

And you're saying to me, your job is to be a 
judge and not to protect. 

It's written in plain English. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Maybe it's a matter of 
semantics, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, it's a matter of written 

MS. RICHARDSON: No, from my part. I was just 
saying from my part. 

SENATOR HUGHES: It's a matter of 

MS. RICHARDSON: What I wanted to say, if I may be 
given the opportunity, is, I see in acting as a judge and 
enforcing the law, I am enforcing those rights that were given 
to the farmworkers by this statute 22 years ago. Because 
without my agency, there would be no other place for the 
farmworkers to go when their rights are violated. 

Farmworkers do not have to be represented by a 


union in order to be able to go before the employer and request 
a raise, or request better conditions, and what have you. 

If they are -- if they are retaliated against, 
that farmworker, without being represented by a union, has the 
rights to go to the nearest regional office and file a charge 
against that employer. 

Without our agency, you would have a law that 
cannot be enforced. That's why I take my job very seriously, 
because in enforcing the law, I am protecting those rights of 
the farmworkers that were given by you Members of the 
Legislature 22 years ago. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you feel that you're worker 

MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Why is it that in four 
summarized cases, you dissented against is majority vote? These 
cases are the Gourmet Harvesting case. You objected to the 
majority ruling. 

The Andrews Distribution Company case, you 
objected to granting a one-hour union access as part of a 
remedial settlement. 

And in the Brighton Farming case, you disagreed 
with the Board's finding that a particular employee walkout was 
protected activity. 

And the Gerawan Ranches case, you objected to the 
Board's majority finding and argued that alleged violation by an 
employee should have been upheld when an employee was discharged 
for refusing to engage in interrogation and surveillance for the 



And you say that you think that you are worker 
friendly, when you went against your own Board, the majority of 
your own Board? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Senator, how many cases have you 
cited there? Four cases? 

SENATOR HUGHES: Four. It could only be one, as 
far as I'm concerned. 

All I want you to explain to me is why you felt 
you were right in taking a dissenting vote. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, that's four cases out of 
181 decisions that I have participated in. Senator. 

I have been there for ten-and-a-half years. I do 
not have those cases before me, so I cannot tell you exactly 
right now why I found what I found without going back and 
looking at the facts. 

But I have to say that four cases out of 181 
decisions, if you're asking for somebody — I'll be very candid. 

I was appointed to be a judge. I was appointed 
to enforce a law in a fair and impartial way. 

If you're looking for somebody who will issue 
decisions to go one side all the time, I am sorry. I am not 
that person. 

I was called upon, I was appointed to, I was 
confirmed to take a look at the totality of the circumstances, 
of the merits of the case before me, and not to prejudge it. 
And based on that, to be able to make a determination. 

And if somebody can say that only four cases out 


of 181 decisions, I ruled against a farmworker, then I have to 
say to you, Senator, if you don't call that worker friendly, I 
do not know what that is. 


SENATOR SOLIS: Thank you for the opportunity to 
be here and ask questions. 

I have met with Ms. Richardson, I believe, on 
other issues in my office. I have some questions, but I wanted 
to go back, if I might for a moment, because I came in a little 
late and wasn't clear on questions that might have been asked 
regarding access. 

If, in fact, there is a commitment on your part, 
if you are confirmed, that you will not restrict or change the 
current access rules? I didn't hear that, so I want to ask for 

MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Senator. The question was 
asked, and what I indicated to the Members of the Committee is 
that that is not my intent, to limit or dismantle in any way the 
existing rights that the unions have. That what I want to do is 
to improve upon the processes. 

And I gave an example in terms of what had 
happened with the motion to deny access, where we feel — I feel 
that justice is not being served because we're hearing the 
events that trigger the alledged violation six months, eight 
months, a year and two years afterwards. 

The same thing with the union when they feel that 
their access rights are being violated, they file an unfair 
] abor practice charge. And in the so-called due process, it 



1 will not get to us until year or two years later. 

2 So I went/ realizing and reading that the union 

3 going to conduct a massive organizing campaign, I went to my 

4 fellow Board members and I said, "There has to be a better way 

5 of doing this." And I started looking at what's called 

6 alternate dispute resolution, where we would be able to bring a 

7 facilitator to be able to to meet with the parties and be able 

8 to bring resolution right there. 

9 And then, that decision would be -- would stay or 

10 would be good until the formal process took place. It would not 

11 be replacing anything that the parties have. It would not be 

12 eliminating anybody's rights. It's interjecting an informal 

13 process to see if the parties can come together. 

14 SENATOR SOLIS: So, you are making a commitment, 

15 then, that you will not erode your current rule? 

16 MS. RICHARDSON: Correct. What I want to do is 

17 improve upon the process. 

18 SENATOR SOLIS: I just want that commitment. 

19 I want it to be clear that the Rules Committee is 

20 also understanding' of that commitment before you vote. 

21 Then the other question, I think, that Senator 

22 Ayala raised was with respect to the caseload, and Senator 

23 Lockyer asked you if there was backlog. You cited some numbers 

24 going back to 1987. 

25 Can you tell me what the current caseload is now 

26 in terms of your backlog for '96 and '97? 

27 MS. RICHARDSON: And I will make the same 

28 distinction as I mentioned to Senator Lockyer. When you're 


asking me about caseload, I'm responding in terms of the Board. 
As you know, Senator, the Board and the General Counsel are two 
separate entities. 

SENATOR SOLIS: But you govern -- 

MS. RICHARDSON: The General Counsel does not 
work for us. He's independently appointed by the Governor, 
independently confirmed, and he has total and complete authority 
over the prosecution of unfair labor practice charges. We 
cannot control that. 

We have to wait until those charges are 
investigated, they turn into complaints. The complaints then go 
to a hearing. And when the decision is issued by the 
administrative law judge, if either party does not like the 
decision, it's appealed to us. 

So, when you ask me what is the current workload 
before the Board, the court, as before the five-member Board/ no 
we do not have a caseload. 

I think what perhaps what you were referring to 
was the caseload of unfair labor practice charges in the General 
Counsel's office. And I think somebody mentioned that there was 
2 2 0- some thing. 

But again. Senator, we have no control over that. 

SENATOR SOLIS: Well, when you say don't have any 
control, though, you obviously do have some influence in your 
capacity -- 

MS. RICHARDSON: We do discuss — 

SENATOR SOLIS: -- in encouraging movement. 

MS. RICHARDSON: Tlnd we have done so. 


1 SENATOR SOLIS: I'm concerned because I know that 

2 there are several, 55 unresolved cases right now that are 

3 pending, many of which have just -- have not been worked on or 

4 received any kind of notification in the last few months. 

5 And when you earlier said there was no caseload, 

6 and yet in fact perhaps -- 

7 MS. RICHARDSON: Before the Board. 

8 SENATOR SOLIS: Right, I understand that. 

9 Nevertheless the employees are being dramatically 

10 affected because of that in action, because of that workload. 

11 MS. RICHARDSON: I understand. Senator. 

12 SENATOR SOLIS: So, I would hope to see that 

13 there's some improvement, whichever abilities of persuation you 

14 might have, to see that that happens. That is a major concern 

15 for many Senators, so I am speaking on behalf of some that sit 

16 on my committee, on the Industrial Relations Committee. 

17 MS. RICHARDSON: I certainly understand that, 

18 Senator, and I will do my very best to be able to communicate, 

19 and continue communicating that to the General Counsel. 

20 SENATOR SOLIS: The other question I have is, I 

21 understand that through executive order that was issued by the 

22 Governor that all agencies have to go out now and review 

23 regulations. 

24 I understand that you, your organization, is 

25 proposing to have seven hearings throughout the state. Can you 

26 please elaborate on the necessity of having that, and if you 

27 could give me an example of the kind of attendance that you 

28 received in the past year when you had hearings? 


MS. RICHARDSON: Yes, Senator. 

You're correct in that two or three months agO/ 
the Governor signed an executive order directing state agencies 
to review their regulations by January 1st, 1999. 

Again, we -- over the years when we -- my tenure, 
we have been accused sometimes of being kind of like hidden 
ourselves in an ivory tower and never let people know who we 
are, and be able to have an exchange of ideas. 

Most people are reluctant to talk us because we 
are judges, and they're afraid that any kind of information, 
anything that they might say will be -- will be giving some 
detail as to a particular case, and in that case, we would have 
to recuse ourselves; we could not participate. 

And in most of my tenure, there was only three of 
us, so we were very careful about not — there was many times I 
wanted to see an election. There was many times I wanted to sit 
in an unfair practice hearing. But I couldn't, because if the 
matter came before us, there was only three of us, I would have 
to recuse myself, and with two, you cannot issue a decision. 

So, in 1995, I think that's when I first met you, 
Senator, in terms that we did — we went out, and we did two 
things. We held regulatory hearings, and we held what we called 
public community sessions, where anybody could come to us and 
say anything and everything that they wanted, or they needed, or 
they complained about, or they didn't like about the ALRB. 

Those were, very very well attended, especially 
by farmworkers. And the UFW was a — played a role in that. 
And we had -- in many cases we had anywhere between 100 to 150 


1 farmworkers that came to our hearings to let us know about the 

2 problems that they were having. 

3 SENATOR SOLIS: Did any employers attend? 

4 MS. RICHARDSON: I was going to get to that. 

5 SENATOR SOLIS: How many? 

6 MS. RICHARDSON: The regulatory portion of that 

7 was not very well attended. 

8 The purpose of us sending out a memo and saying 

9 not to conduct regulatory hearings in November, but this was to 

10 hold hearings where we have have the parties come to uS/ and 

11 tell us in terms of what changes, if any, they wanted of the 

12 regulations. 

13 SENATOR SOLIS: But my understanding is that 

14 anyone, an employee or employer, can currently send you 

15 information via the mail or personally -- 

16 MS. RICHARDSON: That is correct. 

17 SENATOR SOLIS: — come into the office. So, why 

18 the need to have these hearings, when you didn't tell me how 

19 many employers? 

20 MS. RICHARDSON: I believe we had maybe in actual 

21 growers, we had one in El Centro. In the other places, it was 

22 the growers' representatives, attorneys, who attended. 

23 This came to our attention — again, there was no 

24 hidden agenda in terms of going out and present our faces, and 

25 let people know this is who we are. We are real people. You 

26 can come and talk to us. 

27 The representative from the UFW attended our 

28 Board meeting a week ago Wednesday. Let us know that they 


didn't think that was a fiscal, prudent exercise of the 
expenditure of funds. They were not aware of the executive 
order, but it was brought to our attention, and we indicated to 
her that we're sensitive to that, and we will look at it. If 
there's no reason to go out there, we will not have those 
hearings . 

SENATOR SOLIS: Just a question. 

I think you heard you earlier, someone asked a 
question regarding staffing. And when you conduct these public 
hearings out in the field, you have to then draw on staff which 
could be doing something otherwise, perhaps working on cases? 

MS. RICHARDSON: Well, this would be only for the 
Board members to go to. 

I have to say, Senator, that in 1994, when we 
went out, the three of us, to do this two sets of hearings, one 
for the community and the other one for regulation, we were 
conducting business at the same time. We never let anything go 
away or get late because we were out there. 

But that's beside the point. We know — we have 
heard the position of the union. We have heard you. We're 
sensitive to it. 

I certainly would have no problem in saying 
there's no need to have it. We will review the regulations, and 
at some point in time if we have anything — 

SENATOR SOLIS: That's how you personally feel? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I don't have a problem with 
that, Senator. 

SENATOR SOLIS: If they're not cost effective — 



1 MS. RICHARDSON: If they're not cost effective -- 

2 we have been trying to be fiscally prudent, and I think that 

3 this is a situation where the reorganization, that the Senator 

4 brought to my attention, and that is, in trying -- when 

5 somebody's trying to eliminate you, you don't feel too 

6 positive. 

7 SENATOR SOLIS: None of us are from that 

8 persuasion, however. 

9 MS. RICHARDSON: I'm glad to hear that. 

10 SENATOR SOLIS: We would like to see there be 

11 more sufficient funding so that these caseloads can be reduced, 

12 and that folks can get the easement that they need out in the 

13 State of California. 

14 MS. RICHARDSON: Certainly, the General Counsel 

15 would be happy to hear that. 

16 SENATOR SOLIS: I want to be clear, though, that 

17 you're someone who's going to help us in that effort. I, in my 

18 capacity, overseeing your agency, we will want to have those 

19 discussions and perhaps some hearings on that, you know, what my 

20 feeling is about this issue. 

21 MS. RICHARDSON: And I welcome that, and I think 

22 that for a point of information, I believe it was two, three 

23 years ago, maybe four years ago, the Board gave 100 [sic], to 

24 show in terms of our interest in making sure that the workload 

25 is reduced in terms of unfair labor practices. 

2 6 Anywhere between two and four years ago, the 

27 Board transferred $110,000 to the General Counsel's budget so 

28 that he could hire two additional fields examiners to bring that 


workload down. 

So, we have been sensitive, and we have been 
responsive to that need to hire additional staff. 

SENATOR SOLIS: Will you make that commitment 
then, if you are confirmed, to move in that direction, to see 
that we're not only frugal in our budget, but that we actually 
make some attempt to try to get enough support to do the job 
that you are, in fact, authorized to do, or to let this 
Legislature know that? 

MS. RICHARDSON: I am — I am receptive to that, 
and I will do everything that I can. Senator, to make that a 
reality in whichever way I can help. 

SENATOR SOLIS: I don't have any other questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions or comments? 

Is there anyone present .who wishes to make a 



Did you want to do any wrap up or anything in 

MS. RICHARDSON: Just to say thank you for giving 
my the opportunity to appear before you. 

I believe I have done a good job for the parties 
that have come before the Board, and ultimately for the people 
of California. 

Doing this job for ten-and-a-half years has not 
been an easy job. I have been called all kinds of names, but 
again, it's a testament of the things that I am not biased one 
way or the other. I'm there to call the cases on the merits and 
not prejudging. And in doing so, and administering the law, 


1 I'm protecting the rights of the farmworkers. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Richardson, Senator Ayala, 

3 I'm sorry, had to step out for a minute, but he asked that we 

4 postpone voting until next week. That's a courtesy that we give 

5 to any Member of the Committee that needs time to just reflect 

6 on the record. 

7 So, let me thank you for your forthright 

8 testimony. I think you've demonstrated a judicial approach to 

9 resolving disputes that come before you, and one that's 

10 important to make this Board work well. So, let me thank you. 

11 We won't need to take new testimony, I don't 

12 think, and we'll just have a vote only next week. 

13 MS. RICHARDSON: When you say next week, which 

14 day of the week? 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm not sure. We'll have to 

16 work around the other schedules. 

17 MS. RICHARDSON: Thank you very much for the 

18 opportunity. 

19 [Thereupon. This portion of the 

20 Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

21 terminated at approximately 5:05 P.M.] 

22 --ooOoo-- 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

y2. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
^^ day of (_l^. ^^..u^ . 1997. 

J. )^Zi 
Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 336-R when ordering. 



SEP 2 2 1997 






ROOM 113 


2:25 RM. 





ROOM 113 


2:25 P.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




Department of Conservation 




Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1 

Announcement by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER that 

Vote Will Be Put over for One Week 1 


Department of Conservation 1 

Statements by SENATOR BYRON SHER re: 

Department's Sponsorship of Bill to 

Repeal Beverage Container Recycling Law 2 

Request to Confirm Commitments Made to 

Senator in Private Meetings and 

Correspondence 3 

Protection of Integrity of Beverage 

Container Law in California 3 

Funding Curbside Program and Other 

Convenience Programs 3 

Continued Funding of Inner-city 

Community Conservation Programs 3 

Responses by MR. GOLDZBAND 4 

Manufacturers ' Responsibility 4 

Convenience Programs 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Problems with Stolen Recycling 

Containers 6 

Further Responses by MR. GOLDZBAND 7 

Local Conservation Corps 7 

Statements by SENATOR SHER re: 

Manufacturers ' Responsibility 8 






























Importance of Convenience 9 

Support for Confirmation 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Department's Sponsorship of Maddy Bill 10 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Williamson Act and LAFCOs 10 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 13 

Termination of Proceedings 13 

Certificate of Reporter 14 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're waiting for Senator Sher 
to be here for Mr. Goldzband. 

I was asked by a Senate Member today to postpone 
consideration or voting, rather, on Ms. Richardson. That is our 
usual courtesy, so we will put that over until next week. Mr. 
Sher come on up. 

Mr. Goldzband, why don't you join us. Hi. We 
had a chance to have a fairly thorough and interesting 
discussion. We were not able to get Senator Sher to join us 
last time because he was otherwise actively involved in another 
committee hearing. I believe he may have some questions today. 

But let me just start, Mr. Director, by asking 
you if there is anyway in which you would care to supplement, or 
amend, or add to your prior testimony that would be clarifying 
for us? 

As you sometimes, at least, virtually every 
speech I give, that night I think to myself, you know, I should 
have said it this way, or whatever. TVnd if there's any of those 
in your case, you're welcome to add to the record, or I'll just 
call on Senator Sher. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: You can call on Senator Sher. 
The only thing I should correct is when I said 
Rocket Ishmael had left the Green Bay Packers, but it was 
Quadray Ishmael. 


SENATOR SHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

appreciate the Committee's courtesy in holding this matter over 
while I was engaged. I hoped to be here when you talked to Mr. 
Goldzband earlier. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He was very charming. 

SENATOR SHER: He ' s a charming gentleman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mostly we learned that he 
could dance between rain drops. 

SENATOR SHER: I like him a lot, and I knew him 
in an earlier capacity when he was working on energy issues. 
So, I thought that was a good appointment the Governor has made. 

And the reason I actually -- we exchanged 
correspondence on a couple of subjects that I had reviewed with 
your predecessor on both the bottle bill and the surface mining 
laws, and we had good discussions. 

And the issue particularly on the bottle bill 
that I wanted to just get out here on the public record that was 
of some concern to me was the fact earlier in the year, the 
Department actually sponsored a bill which would have totally 
repealed California's beverage container recycling law, a law 
which, in my view, has been the most successful environmental 
law the state has ever adopted in terras of public acceptance and 
desire to participate in it. 

And so that, I thought, had a destablizing impact 
on the private sector businesses engaged in recycling activities 
in the bottle bill, and uncertainty among local governments 
which depend on provisions in the bottle bill to aid them in 
complying with AB 939, the law requiring waste diversion from 
landfills . 

1 And particularly since there aren't any studies 

2 or analyses from your Department which would have justified a 

3 repeal of what is really considered one of our successful 

4 environmental laws, therefore I invited Mr. Goldzband come talk 

5 to me. We actually shared with the Committee, we sent copies of 

6 my letter to you and your letter to me, which the Rules 

7 Committee got copies of. 

8 Most recently, Mr. Goldzband came to see me. He 

9 confirmed to me, and I just want to get this on the record, that 

10 that action was not really designed to get rid of any recycling 

11 law of beverage containers in California, but was to open up for 

12 discussion some of the issues. 

13 Here is the part I'd like to have you confirm, 

14 Mr. Goldzband, for the Committee, what you told me in our most 

15 recent meeting; namely, that you will be a champion for 

16 protecting the integrity of the beverage container law in 

17 California, including particularly provisions requiring 

18 manufacturer responsibility for promoting and being responsible 

19 for the recycling of the beverage container type. 

20 Secondly, for funding of the convenience 

21 programs, and particularly the curbside programs which the local 

22 governments depend on. 

23 And finally, continued funding of the inner-city 

24 community conservation programs which have been so successful in 

25 helping young people who might not otherwise get productive 

26 work, and also helps the bottle bill. 

27 So, could you confirm that all of that is true, 

28 that you are a champion and you will support those. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And could you do that in a way 
where you don't lose Lewis and I? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Let me tell the Committee not 
only what I said last week in the opening statement, but what I 
think we discussed, which is that I think we can easily agree 
that we should support the principles which underlie the 
program. And the program has been successful in getting bottles 
and cans and those containers from the landfill, or not going to 
the landfill, as well as recycling them. 

And we need to reduce the litter, which we have 
done, and which we should continue to do, and we should reduce 
the demand for landfill space, which the program does, and we 
should aim for a high recycling rate. And recycling has become 
a pervasive ethic. A lot of us do it in our daily lives. 
Indeed, a lot of Californians do. 

With regard to the actual three issues that I 
think that you brought up, which were the manufacturers' 
responsibility, convenience, and the conservation corps, I'll 
take those one at a time. 

As we have discussed, the idea of manufacturers' 
responsibility was essentially settled ten-eleven years ago when 
Governor Deukmejian signed the law. That is that manufacturers 
have a responsibility, and it's an important part of the 
program. And beverage manufacturers recognize that. 

The question that I have, as you and I have 
discussed, is how should that responsibility be carried out, 
because there are a lot of ways you can carry out manufacturers' 

1 responsibility. We had a discussion last week about simply 

2 setting standards by a regulatory body, and making sure that you 

3 meet those standards to basic micro-management. 

4 Basically, the way I tend to look at it is that 

5 there is a manufacturers' responsibility, and we ought to see if 

6 we can carry it out as efficiently as we possibly can. And we 

7 ought to make sure that we get as much input as we can to see if 

8 we can do it in a way that is incredibly efficient. 

9 With regard to convenience, I would argue that 

10 convenience is a linchpin to this program. If people don't find 

11 it convenient to recycle their containers, less containers will 

12 be recycled. 

13 Our consumer survey determined that curbside pick 

14 up seems to be the most convenient method of recycling, followed 

15 by taking containers to a recycling center. 

16 Something like three-quarters of the state's 

17 households are served by curbside. And the number one way of 

18 trying to make it more -- try to make the program more 

19 convenient, again, according to the survey, is to expand, make 

20 the program -- expand the curbside opportunities. And that was 

21 parts of the survey that we did earlier this year. It was the 

22 first survey ever done specifically on the bottle bill. 

23 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you know the largest urban 

24 or suburban area that -- 

25 MR. GOLDZBAND: That doesn't have one. 

27 MR. GOLDZBAND: I can find that out for you, sir. 

28 One of the real issues that we have, and I've 

discussed it with Senator Sher, with Senator Alpert as well, is 
the idea of the urban rural issue, or actually suburban-urban 
versus rural issue with regard to this program. Because, you 
need to make it convenient, and we need to make sure that people 
have the ability to recycle. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I would think you'd want to 
know where the gaps are in order to find out what the problems 
that caused the gaps are. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: No doubt about it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What do you do when someone 
steals your containers? 

I live in a neighborhood where this constantly 
happens, they steal the container. And it's too much trouble to 
call and ask them to leave another container, and I think a lot 
of people fear that if they lose their containers, they're going 
to be charged for them. You don't do enough advertising about 

SENATOR SHER: Those are the bins you're talking 
about . 

MR. GOLDZBAND: The bins; the blue box or the 
green box. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Those bins. I mean, it made it 
convenient, but a lot of people -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are yours blue or green? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I don't remember. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's probalby one of the two. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Mine is blue, and believe it or 
not — I can't believe you asked that question — mine was taken 

1 this past week. 

2 SENATOR HUGHES: Mine was taken here in 

3 Sacramento. 

4 MR. G0LDZB7VND: Mine was in San Francisco. I 

5 figured I'll just go pick one up actually on Friday, because I 

6 have the ability to do that. 

7 I think that what we ought to make sure of is 

8 that the local governments which run these programs have the 

9 ability to have very good outreach to the folks who use them. 

10 If it means dialing up your local disposal company and simply 

11 say, "The next time you come around to pick up, would you drop 

12 off." 

13 SENATOR HUGHES: Then the neighbors get another 

14 free one. 

15 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I guess green is not in 

16 demand. Mine doesn't get stolen. 

17 MR. GOLDZBAND: It's that blue which is really 

18 hot. 

19 The final thing -- 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I recommend an ugly color. 

21 MR. GOLDZBAND: -- is the local -- brown — the 

22 local conservation corps. The local conservation corps are very 

23 valuable and a very valuable part of the program. We are 

24 working with them to make some real -- make a real nexus between 

25 what they do for the program and the grant money which we give 

26 out to them. Right now, it's candidly too nebulous for me. And 

27 actually, it's a little too nebulous for them, because they want 

28 to become entrepreneurial, and we want to give them the ability 


to become entrepreneurial. 

Right now, the Department funds about 25 percent 
of their operating budgets on the average, which is a lot of 
money for a nonprofit to depend upon for one source of funding. 
So, we want to encourage them, and we are working with them to 
take a look at working with others within the program and trying 
to do some, for example, joint ventures, for example. 

It's been a lot of fun working with local 
conservation corps. I have actually done a couple site visits. 
I understand I'm the first Director to do so. And we believe 
they're a very valuable part of this, and they will no doubt be 
part of the program as we put people around the table and start 
working and try to figure out the new reauthorization. 

I would sort of end my thoughts here by saying 
that all the stakeholders are going to be part of the process, 
because if we don't work with you all to try to get a bill that 
the Governor signs, it's going to be a waste of our time. So, 
we will include everybody in the process to try to formulate the 
way we're going to do business. 

SENATOR SHER: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that 
forthright response. 

I think that you've answered all those questions 
in the affirmative. There's nothing new here. These were all 
parts of the original program. 

The manufacturers of the glass, the plastic, and 
the aluminum all at the outset said that they were confident 
that their container type could make it in the market, and that 
if the recycling value of their product wasn't enough to pay for 

1 the cost of recycling, that they would bridge the gap. That is 

2 the manufacturers' responsibility that I think you have 

3 confirmed. 

4 The convenience was something that was an 

5 important part of the original bill. And while the curbside's 

6 important/ and particularly in the bill I carried, AB 939, to 

7 help the local governments meet their diversion, I think we all 

8 agree there at least has to be some reasonable opportunity for 

9 consumer who pay that money in the grocery store, the deposit, 

10 to have an opportunity to get it back. Because one thing you 

11 don't get in curbside, where you put it out, you kind of give 

12 up -- 

13 MR. GOLDZBAND: You make a choice. 

14 SENATOR SHER: -- to get the money back. 

15 Therefore, the local government gets that amount and helps 

16 support the curbside convenience. 

17 But at least there ought to be some reasonable 

18 opportunity for those who pay in the store and want to get the 

19 money back to have it. And I think we agreed on that point, 

20 too. 

21 I'm very satisfied with your responses, and also 

22 your idea that everybody work together. I assume that includes 

23 Legislators. We will be part of the effort to develop any 

24 consensus for change, if there is to be any change. 

25 I think you're an outstanding candidate. 

26 I'll go on record here, Mr. Chairman, saying that 

27 I think Mr. Goldzband's a very good candidate, and I certainly 

28 want to vote and will vote for him, assuming he clears this 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Fair assumption. 

I notice you didn't respond to the bill the 
Senator asked specifically about. 

MR. GOLDZBT^D: Oh, I thought I did. 

Let me respond this way. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You can blame somebody else. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: No, I wouldn't dare do that. As 
the Director of the Department, I think it falls on me. 

The bill was introduced by Senator Maddy at our 
request. We did so to ensure that the stakeholders come to the 
table basically with -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You got their attention. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: We wanted them to have an 
incentive to come to us, and for us to go to them, and to think 
outside the box. And I think that it has worked. 

I also think that what we really wanted to do as 
well is to demonstrate to them that we don't have a preconceived 
notion of exactly how we do things, that we want to get their 
ideas so we can have a concensus process. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's about 15 million acres in 
the Williamson Act in California. There's 15,000 in my own 
district under the preserved status. 

While I was on the Board of Supervisors, we 
created that preserve. Now it's been broken up by LAFCO. 
They're not elected; the Supervisors are. And LAFCO is now 
letting that go to development and designating what area is 
going to move to what city. 


1 It's very unique because the 15,000 acres, the 

2 three cities want part it. 

3 It wasn't the Board of Supervisors who acted on 

4 that. It was LAFCO. 

5 I wonder how that came about? 

6 MR. GOLDZBAND: Maybe the best way for me to 

7 answer that, and it's not going to satisfy you completely, is 

8 that you're not alone. We have discovered in our enforcement of 

9 the Williamson Act that LAFCOs, and the counties, and the cities 

10 don't always communicate with each other, and candidly, don't 

11 always follow the Williamson Act rules. We found that down in 

12 the Central Valley, and we're actually working on a case now in 

13 which that actually has happened. 

14 What we're trying to do through the Williamson 

15 Act Advisory Committee as well as working with other Williamson 

16 Act stakeholders, such as AFT, and the Farm Bureau, and so on, 

17 is try to make much more clear the rules with regard to the 

18 Williamson Act so that there can be no question about what this 

19 paragraph means or that sentence means. 

20 It all comes down to the voluntary agreement 

21 between the land owner and the state. And the agreement that 

22 the regulatory compact, really, the state has with the local 

23 governments to enforce that law. 

24 7\nd so, all I can tell you is that we have seen 

25 more and more pressure on Williamson Act land. We will continue 

26 to see more and more pressure, and it's our Department's belief 

27 and our Department's purpose to ensure that the Williamson Act 

28 is not only adequately enforced, but rigorously enforced. 


One of the things we're trying to do actually, 
and Senator Costa introduced legislation on, on our behalf, is 
to make the Williamson Act a little more flexible so that we can 
actually -- if there's a Williamson Act problem, we can actually 
get land that is -- has a conservation easement on it in 
perpetuity in exchange for the land that's problemmatic . 

SENATOR AYALA: The problem with the Williamson 
Act is the arm of the state, and nothing anyone can do to appeal 
it to the Board of Supervisors. They can do any other action by 
the Planning Commission or anyone else, because you have the 
right to appeal that to the Board of Supervisors or go to court. 
I don't know of anyone ever challenging it because it's too 
expensive, number one. Not only are you paying for your 
attorney, but you're paying for the county counsel. You're 
paying for both counsels, you know. 

So, I think that LAFCO's been in existence for 
quite sometime. It's about time that it was streamlined a 
little bit because it's too awkward, too clumsy. And I don't 
know whose responsibility it falls under when you start getting 
annexations and incorporations. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: Blanket annexations. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's a function of LAFCO, but I 
just wonder how they got involved in authorizing the breaking of 
the preserve. 

MR. GOLDZBAND: If you'd allow me, sir, I'd love 
to sit down with you on that and bring along our folks who 
actually work with the LAFCOs and so on, and we can try to 
figure out if there's a better way of doing things. 



1 SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

2 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any further questions. 

3 Mr. Simoni, Ms. George, your clients are listed 

4 as support. Does anyone have anything they wish to add, or may 

5 I ask for a motion? 

6 SENATOR AYALA: So move. 

7 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to confirm. 

8 Call the roll, please. 

9 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


11 SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

12 Senator Hughes. 


14 SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


16 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


18 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. 

19 SENATOR BRULTE: Brulte Aye. 

20 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Five to zero. 

21 Good luck. We wish you well. Thank you. 

22 MR. GOLDZBAND: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, 

23 Senators. 

24 [Thereupon. This portion of the 

25 Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

26 terminated at approximately 3:14 P.M.] 

27 --ooOoo-- 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Coiranittee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITN&SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of vJ^;^J^-^w^,/g^ , 1997. 




Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 337-R when ordering. 


itWOUMPAf-rc^ i^cpf 


SEP 2 2 1997 

SAN PR/^.^; , J 




l^C cj i^(e^ i/<~ 


ROOM 3191 


10:00 A.M. 






11 ROOM 3191 




17 10:00 A.M, 
25 Reported by 


27 Evelyn J. Mizak 

Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




Agricultural Labor Relations Board 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointee; 


Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1 

Motion to Confirm 1 

Committee Action 1 

Termination of Proceedings 1 

Certificate of Reporter 2 

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 --00O00-- 

3 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Then it's Ivonne Richardson, 

4 Member of the Ag. Labor Board. 

5 Members, we've had a hearing on the matter. I 

6 suggested that we wouldn't take new testimony, that we just have 

7 it held for a vote only. I think there's been various 

8 opportunities just to discuss issues with the appointee. 

9 Any other comments? 

10 SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move it. 

11 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to recommend 

12 confirmation to the Floor. Do you want to call the roll on 

13 that. 

14 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 






Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



22 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer 


24 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

25 [Thereupon. This portion of the 

26 Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

27 terminated at approximately 10:09 A.M.] 

28 --00O00-- 


1, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of- ,A^7^^^if~^^^&-^>>J , 1997. 


Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $2.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 338-R when ordering.